DEC 


A  QUESTION  IN   BAPTIST 
HISTORY: 


WHETHER   THE   ANABAPTISTS   IN   ENGLAND   PRAC- 
TICED IMMERSION  BEFORE  THE  YEAR  1641? 


WITH  AN  APPENDIX 

ON  THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS,  AT 
PROVIDENCE,  R.  I.,  IN   1639. 


BY 

WILLIAM   H.  WHITSITT, 

PRESIDENT  OK  THE  SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 
LOUISVILLE,  KY. 


LOUISVILLE,  KY.: 

CHAS.  T.  DEARING. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1896,  by 

WM.  H.  WHITSITT. 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


TO  F.  W.  W. 
'AND  SHE'S  A'  THE  WORLD  TO  ME." 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  question  does  not  relate  to  the  origin  of  im- 
mersion. Immersion  as  a  religions  rite  was  prac- 
ticed by  John  the  Baptist  about  the  year  30  of  our 
era,  and  was  solemnl}^  enjoined  by  our  Savior  upon 
all  his  ministers  to  the  end  of  time.  No  other  ob- 
servance was  in  use  for  baptism  in  New  Testament 
times.  The  practice,  though  sometimes  greatly 
perverted,  has  yet  been  continued  from  the  Apostolic 
•  age  down  to  our  own.  As  I  understand  the  Scriptures 
immersion  is  essential  to  Christian  baptism.  The 
question  as  to  the  origin  and  essential  character  of  im- 
mersion is,  therefore,  not  in  issue.  That  is  a  closed 
question;  it  does  not  admit  of  being  opened  among 
Baptist  people. 

The  issue  before  us  is  far  different,  namely: 
Whether  the  immersion  of  adult  believers  was  prac- 
ticed in  England  by  the  Anabaptists  before  the  year 
1641?  Whether  these  English  people  first  adopted 
immersion  for  baptism  and  thus  became  Baptists  in 
or  about  the  year  1641? 

This  is  purely  a  question  of  modern  historical 
research.  It  does  not  affect  any  items  of  Baptist 
principle  or  practice.  These  are  all  established 
upon  the  Bible.  Our  watchword  for  generations 
has  been,  "The  Bible,  the  Bible  alone,  the  religion 


6  INTRODUCTORY.     - 

of  Baptists  !  "  It  is  now  too  late  in  the  day  to  alter 
our  views  and  set  forth  any  new  battle  cry.  Bap- 
tists have  always  maintained  that  "the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  given  by  inspir- 
ation of  God,  and  are  the  only  sufficient,  certain  and 
authoritative  rule  of  all  saving  knowledge,  faith  and 
obedience."  Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay. 
Whoever  attempts  it  must  inevitably  fall  into  error. 
Let  us  stand  by  the  old  landmarks;  let  us  walk  in 
the  old  paths. 

Several  persons  have  undertaken  original  investi- 
gation at  the  British  Museum  to  decide  where  the 
truth  may  lie  in  reference  to  this  question.  I  had 
the  honor  to  be  of  this  number.  My  researches 
were  prosecuted  in  the  summer  of  1880.  The  re- 
sults of  them  are  contained  in  a  body  of  manuscript 
notices  and  extracts  derived  from  various  volumes, 
most  of  them  found  in  that  collection  in  the  Museum 
which  goes  under  the  name  of  the  King's  Pamphlets. 

A  brief  account  of  King  George's  Pamphlets  may 
be  recorded  here.  These  were  brought  together  by 
the  royalist  bookseller,  George  Thomason.  When 
the  Long  Parliament  assembled  in  the  year  1640 
there  was  a  sensible  relaxation  of  the  authority  both 
of  Church  and  State  in  England.  By  consequence 
the  public  press  was  immediately  employed  by  all 
sorts  of  people  to  a  much  larger  extent  than  had 
been  possible  hitherto.  Publications  of  every  kind 
came  teeming  from  it.      About  the  year  1641  Mr. 


INTRODUCTORY.  7 

Thomason  conceived  the  idea  of  preserving  these 
for  the  uses  of  history,  and  he  began  by  collecting 
as  many  as  he  could  lay  his  hands  on  from  the  pre- 
ceding year.  His  enterprise  was  continued  un- 
weariedly  for  more  than  twenty  years,  down  to  the 
year  1662.  Being  himself  a  bookseller,  and  situated 
at  the  center  of  London  trade,  he  enjoyed  facilities 
that  could  scarcely  be  improved  upon.  Few  publica- 
tions of  any  sort  escaped  his  attention.  His  mate- 
rials were  duly  arranged  in  chronological  order,  and 
he  was  careful  in  most  instances  to  inscribe  with  ink 
upon  the  title  page  the  date  on  which  the  respective 
works  appeared,  together  with  indications  regarding 
the  authorship  wherever  the  same  might  be  known 
to  him,  Tliey  constitute  a  large  library,  and  are 
unrivaled  sources  for  the  history  of  that  period. 

Thomason's  collection  remained  in  a  measure  un- 
protected from  the  ye'ar  1662,  when  the  work  ceased, 
down  to  the  year  1762,  at  which  time  it  was  pur- 
chased by  King  George  III,  for  three  hundred 
pounds  and  presented  to  the  British  Museum,  and 
therefore  was  named  in  his  honor.  It  has  been 
accessible  to  scholars  for  13i  years. 

Another  investigator  was  Rev,  Henry  Martyn 
Dexter,  D.D.,  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  one  of  the 
foremost  authorities  for  original  research  in  the  de- 
partment of  church  history  that  has  yet  appeared  in 
America.  He  spent  "some  days"  at  the  Museum, 
for  this  purpose  in  the  winter  of  1880-81,  and  gath- 
ered the  fruits  of  his  labors  into  a  volume  entitled, 


8  INTRODUCTORY. 

"The  True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  the  Se-Baptist, 
told  by  Himself  and  his  Contemporaries. "  This  work 
which  appeared  in  the  month  of  December,  1881,  is 
of  the  highest  importance.  Though  I  had  reached 
the  conclusion  that  immersion  was  introduced  into 
England  in  the  year  1641,  and  publicly  announced 
the  same  in  September,  1880,  I  cheerfully  concede 
the  high  merits  of  Dr.  Dexter.  He  uniformly  ex- 
hibits the  best  kind  of  learning,  great  thoroughness 
and  patient  accuracy.  Moreover,  at  the  time  when 
he  gave  himself  to  this  particular  labor,  he  had 
enjoyed  wide  experience  in  the  business  of  original 
historical  research,  and  his  acquaintance  with  the 
library  of  the  British  Museum  was  extensive  and 
valuable. 

Numbers  of  the  citations  which  I  had  sought  out 
in  the  year  1880,  and  which  I  still  retain  in  manu- 
script form,  I  found  reproduc*ed  in  an  independent 
fashion  by  Dr.  Dexter  in  1881.  Likewise  he  fell 
upon  a  good  many  passages  that  I  had  not  seen. 
In  setting  forth  the  facts  of  the  case  at  this  time 
I  shall  make  use  of  the  researches  of  this  admirable 
scholar  as  well  as  of  my  own.  It  is  my  purpose  to 
accord  to  him  the  fullest  credit  for  all  that  he  has 
done;  therefore,  when  citations  shall  be  given,  no 
mention  will  be  made  of  him  in  case  they  are  de- 
rived from  my  own  manuscript  collections.  But  in 
every  instance  where  they  shall  be  taken  from  his 
volume  mentioned  above,  that  fact  will  be  delinitely 
stated. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


RECENT   INVESTIGATIONS  IN    BAPTIST    HISTORY. 

THE  earliest  author  of  note  in  this  department  of 
research  is  Thomas  Crosby,  who  published  a 
Histor}^  of  the  English  Baptists  in  four  volumes, 
London,  1738-40.  It  is  a  work  of  real  merit  in 
■many  directions,  and  of  the  first  importance  to  every 
student  of  Baptist  history.  Mr.  Crosby  was  fol- 
lowed by  Rev.  Isaac  Backus  with  a  History  of  New 
England,  with  particular  Reference  to  the  Denom- 
ination of  Christians  called  Baptists.  Three  vols., 
Boston,  1777-1796.  He  is  in  every  sense  the  equal 
of  his  predecessor,  and  in  some  respects  may  be  al- 
lowed to  have  gone  beyond  him.  Rev.  Joseph 
Ivimey  next  appears  with  a  history  of  t\w>  English 
Baptists.  Four  vols.,  London,  1811-1830.  The 
first  two  volumes  are  largely  dependent  upon  Cros- 
by, who  covers  most  of  the  period  occupied  by  them; 
nevertheless  it  is  a  praiseworthy  performance,  and 
has  always  been  received  with  favor.  The  next  work 
was  by  Rev.  David  Benedict,  D.D.,  entitled  A  Gen- 
•eral  History  of  the  Baptist  Denomination  in  Amer- 
ica and  Other  Parts  of  the  World.      Two  vols.,  Bos- 


10  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

ton,  1813.  Another  edition,  almost  entirely  rewrit- 
ten, was  issued  at  New  York  in  1848.  Both  of 
these  are  indispensable  for  American  Baptist  his- 
tory. 

These  authors  one  and  all  have  rendered  impor- 
tant services,  but  owing  to  circumstances  over  which 
they  had  no  control,  none  of  them  had  access  to  the 
important  documents  illustrating  the  movement  un- 
der Smyth,  Helwys  and  Murton,  which  are  pre- 
served in  the  archives  of  the  Mennonite  church  at 
Amsterdam,  in  Holland.  They  accomplished  all 
that  was  in  their  power,  when  one  considers  the  sit- 
uation they  occupied.  They  deserve  the  heartiest 
recognition  and  gratitude.  It  would  be  unreason- 
able to  expect  them  to  achieve  impossible  things. 
Subsequent  generations,  who  enjoyed  facilities  and 
information  that  were  beyond  the  reach  of  these  ex- 
cellent students,  made  progress  beyond  the  point 
that  had  been  attained  by  their  researches;  but  that 
progress  would  not  have  been  possible  without  the 
foundations  which  they  had  laid. 

In  1851  the  works  of  John  Robinson,  pastor  of 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  with  a  memoir  and  annota- 
tions by  R.  Ashton,  in  three  volumes,  were  pub- 
lished at  London  and  Boston.  The  learned  editor 
(vol.  3,  p.  461)  gave  utterance  to  the  following  state- 
ment: ''It  is  rather  a  singular  fact  that  zealous  as- 
were  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  friends  for  believers'  bap- 
tism, and  earnest  as  were  their  opponents  in  behalf 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  11' 

of  infant  baptism,  the  question  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism  was  never  mooted  bj  either  party.  Iimnersion  \ 
hajptism  does  not  ajyjyeaT  to  have  been  practiced  or 
jpleaded  for  hy  either  Smyth  or  Helwys^  the  alleged 
founder  of  the  General  Baptist  Denomination  in 
England.  Nothing  appears  in  these  controversial  / 
writings  to  warrant  the  supposition  that  they  regard- 
ed immersion  as  tlie  proper  and  only  mode  of  ad- 
ministering that  ordinance.  Incidental  allusions 
there  are  in  their  own  works  and  in  the  replies  of 
Kobinson  that  the  baptism  which  Mr.  Smyth  per- 
formed on  himself  must  have  been  rather  by  affusion 
or  pouring."  (Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  203.)  The  result 
obtained  by  Mr.  Ashton  was  mainly  of  the  negative 
sort,  but  that  a  man  of  his  ability  and  research 
should  suggest  doubts  that  the  baptism  employed 
by  Smyth  and  Helwys  could  have  been  anything  else 
than  immersion  was  matter  for  sober  reflection. 

Still  no  decided  progress  in  this  investigation 
was  possible  without  the  co-operation  and  assist- 
ance of  Mennonite  scholars.  Smyth  and  Helwys 
resided  at  Amsterdam  at  the  time  when  their  move- 
ment was  set  on  foot,  and  it  was  from  that  quarter 
alone  that  reliable  information  could  be  procured 
about  their  manner  of  conducting  it.  The  Men- 
nonite, church  with  which  they  both  had  intimate 
relations  was  endowed  with  the  historic  sense, 
and  had  preserved  in  her  archives  a  number  of 
invaluable    documents    concerning    this    business^ 


12  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

For  a  long  season  Mennonite  scholars  had  not  dis- 
played any  lively  curiosity  on  this  topic,  for  the 
reason  that  when  immersion  was  adopted  in  Eng- 
land in  IGJrl  the  previous  intimate  connections  with 
their  English  brethren  were  entirely  broken  oft',  and 
had  never  been  restored. 

When  Rev.  B.  Evans,  D.D.,  was  preparing  his 
work, entitled  Early  English  Baptists,  2  vols. , London, 
1862  and  1864,  he  first  broke  the  ice  and  succeeded 
in  engaging  the  interest  and  assistance  of  Prof.  S. 
Muller,  of  the  Mennonite  College  at  Amsterdam,  a 
man  of  the  highest  character  for  learning  and  probity. 
No  person  of  the  former  generation  appears  to  have 
been  more  influential  or  honored  among  that  excel- 
lent body  of  Christians  in  Holland.  A  singular  in- 
cident is  that  Dr.  Dexter  (Congregationalism,  p. 
636,  note  42),  who  is  commonly  so  exact  in  his 
statements,  should  confound  him  with  Fred.  Muller; 
Frof.  de  Hoop  Scheft'er,  who  knew  him  far  more  in- 
timately, calls  him  "the  professor  S.  Muller"  (De 
Brownisten,  p.  128,  note  2),  an  entirely  different 
and  more  important  personage. 

Frof.  Muller  entered  into  the  archives  of  the. Men- 
nonite church,  and  bringing  forth  a  number  of  doc- 
uments that  had  not  been  disturbed  perhaps  for  two 
hundred  years,  translated  them  and  sent  them  to  Dr. 
Evans,  who  published  them  in  the  Early  English 
Baptists,  vol.  1,  pp.  209-224,  and  pp.  244-272;  vol. 
2,    pp.    21-51.      Here    was    indeed   an    inestimable 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  13- 

treasure.  Dr.  Evans  did  not  understand  very  well 
what  use  to  make  of  it;  but  lie  placed  the  world  un- 
der lasting  obligations  by  merely  inserting  it  in  his 
book.  It  was  impossible  to  put  off  for  any  consid- 
erable period  a  better  knowledge  of  the  facts  after 
that  great  light  had  appeared. 

That  Prof.  Muller,  whose  name  sounded  well 
among  scholars  in  every  part  of  the  continent, 
should  give  his  splendid  authority  to  the  statement 
(Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  223)  that  neither  "the  Waterland- 
ers,  nor  any  other  of  the  various  parties  of  the  Neth- 
erland  Doopsgezinden  practiced  at  any  time  baptism 
by  immersion,"  was  likewise  a  revelation  to  many 
students.  Moreover,  the  dazed  and  uncertain  con- 
dition in  which  the  mind  of  Dr.  Evans  was  thrown 
was  much  remarked  upon.  He  could  take  no 
definite  position,  but  sometimes  was  inclined  to  the 
notion  that  immersion  was  introduced  into  England 
long  after  the  time  of  Smyth,  and  then  "speedily 
became  the  rule  with  both  sections  of  the  Baptist 
community."     (Yol.  2,  p.  79.) 

With  all  his  manifest  defects,  it  was  Evans 
who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  new  learning  in  Bap- 
tist history  by  procuring  access  to  the  archives  of 
the  Mennonite  church.  After  that  had  occurred,  it 
was  only  a  question  of  time  when  additional  study 
of  these  sources  of  information  should  diffuse  addi- 
tional light. 

The  Quaker  author,  Robert  Barclay,  next  appeared 


14  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

with  the  well-known  work  entitled  The  Inner  Life 
of  the  Religious  Societies  of  the  Commonwealth, 
London,  1876,  in  which  he  founded  upon  the  docu- 
ments published  by  Evans,  and  leaned  upon  the  arm 
-of  Prof.  J.  G.  de  Hoop  Scheffer,  the  distinguished 
successor  of  Prof,  S.  Muller,  who  had  been  the  co- 
laborer  of  Dr.  Evans.  The  chief  advance  made  by 
Barclay  consisted  in  fixing  a  precise  date  for  the  in- 
troduction of  immersion  into  England.  He  says, 
Inner  Life,  p.  73:  "The  practice  of  immersion  ap- 
pears to  have  been  introduced  in  England  on  the 
12th  of  September,  1633."  The  work  of  Dr.  Dex- 
ter, Congregationalism  as  Seen  in  its  Literature, 
New  York,  1S80,  pp.  318  f.,  note  108,  occupies  the 
same  position  as  Barclay,  citing  and  approving  his 
statement  to  the  effect  that  immersion  "seems  to 
have  been  introduced  into  England,  12  September, 
1633." 

The  information""that  immersion  had  been  intro- 
duced into  England  on  the  12th  of  September,  1633, 
was  derived  from  Prof,  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  This  po- 
sition was  called  in  question  by  the  late  Dr.  Under- 
bill, of  London,  and  the  Dutch  scholar  was  there- 
upon compelled  to  defend  himself,  a  task  in  which 
lie  so  far  succeeded  that  Barclay  allowed  the  state- 
ment to  appear  in  his  volume  as  cited  above,  whence 
it  was  carried  over  almost  in  the  same  words  by 
Dexter,  whose  work  appeared  in  the  summer  of 
1880. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  15 

In  September,  1880,  I  moved  up  the  figures  just 
«iglit  years,  announcing,  and  proving,  in  tlie  New 
York  Independent  for  September  2  and  9,  that  im- 
mersion was  introduced  into  England,  not  in  the  year 
1633,  but  in  the  year  1641.  Many  builders  are  re- 
quired to  construct  a  house,  and  the  work  can  be  per- 
formed only  by  slow  degrees.  This  period  of  eight 
years  is  my  personal  contribution  to  the  recent  ad- 
vance in  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  Baptist  history. 

It  was  an  English  Baptist  historian  who  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  new  learning  in  Baptist  history, 
but  English  Baptist  scholars  have  kept  holiday  in 
this  department  ever  since  his  volumes  left  the  press. 
With  such  ample  collections  as  the  British  Museum, 
the  Bodleian  and  other  libraries  lying  just  under 
their  noses,  it  has  seemed  a  sad  hardship  that  in  all 
these  years  they  did  not  lift  a  finger  to  aid  in  the 
labor  of  investigating  original  sources.  The  quiet 
composure  with  which  they  have  rested  in  tradition- 
al views  that  had  been  exploded  and  discredited  by 
Evans  would  be  amusing  if  it  were  not  lamentable. 
A  generation  has  passed  away  since  1862,  and  yet  the 
only  English  production  in  Baptist  history  that  has 
come  to  the  attention  of  the  general  public  has  been  the 
fraud  at  Epworth,  Crowle  and  West  Butterwick, 
that  brings  blushes  to  the  cheeks  of  intelligent  Bap- 
tist people  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

The  conclusion  that  immersion  was  first  intro- 
duced into  England  in   1641  was  conveyed  to  Prof, 


16  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

de  Hoop  Sclieft'er  in  a  private  letter  dated  Septem- 
ber 21,  1879.  In  a  reply  that  lie  sent  me  on  the 
28th  of  November,  he  assured  me  that  after  much 
patient  investigation  he  had  accepted  my  view  of  the 
subject.  Moreover,  in  the  early  portion  of  1881,  a 
few  months  after  I  had  returned  from  London  and 
publicly  announced  the  results  of  my  researches, 
this  incomparable  scholar  forwarded  the  first  work 
that  appeared  in  print  giving  distinct  support  to  my 
thesis.  It  was  entitled,  De  Brownisten  te  Am- 
sterdam, Gedurende  den  Eersten  Tijd  na  Hunne 
Yestiging,  in  Yerband  met  het  Ontstaan  van  de 
Broederschap  der  Baptisten.^  Bijdrage  van  J.  G. 
de  Hoop  Schefi'er.  Overgedrukt  uit  de  Yerslagen 
en  Mededeelingen  der  Koninklijke  Akademie  van 
Wetenschappen,  Afdeeling  Letterkunde,  2de  Reeks, 
Deel  X.      Amsterdam,  Johannes  Mueller,  1881. 

(^The  Brownists  at  Amsterdam,  During  the  First 
Period  After  Their  Settlement,  in  Connection  with 
the  Origin  of  the  Brotherhood  of  the  Baptists.  Con- 
tribution by  J.  G.  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  Printed  from 
the  Memoirs  and  Communications  of  the  Royal 
Academy  of  Sciences,  Department  of  Literature, 
Second  Series,  Part  X.  Amsterdam,  Johannes 
Mueller,  1881.) 

To  find  that  my  researches  had  been  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Sciences  at 
Amsterdam  and  endorsed  in  a  work  of  ample  and 
exact  learning  by  one  of  the  first  masters  of  history 


A  QUEST[ON  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  17 

in  Europe  was  an  encouragement  for  an  humble  pro- 
fessor across  tlie  ocean.  It  offends  my  modesty  to 
refer  to  the  generous  recognition  which  the  peerless 
Dutch  professor  accorded  to  my  labors  wherever  my 
name  is  mentioned  in  his  pages;  but  my  present 
circumstances  are  so  painful  and  unfortunate  that  I 
believe  I  shall  be  excused  for  citing  what  he  says 
on  page  5,  note  1:  "My  attention  was  directed  to 
them  (the  company  of  Smyth  and  Helwys)  in  1862, 
when  I  made  investigations  regarding  some  of  them 
who  united  with  the  Waterland  Mennonites  in  1615, 
for  the  benefit  of  B.  Evans  in  his  Early  English  Bap- 
tists; and  I  was  fortunate  enough  to  recover  the 
Dutch  translation  of  a  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Eng- 
lish original  of  which  had  been  lost  as  early  as  the 
year  1738,  until  in  1871  it  was  at  last  discovered  by 
H.  M.  Dexter  in  the  Library  of  York  Minster.  I 
found  occasion  for  renewed  investigations  in  a  cor- 
respondence I  carried  on  with  R.  Barclay  from  1871 
to  1876;  and  above  all  in  consequence  of  various  in- 
quiries directed  to  me  since  August,  1879,  by  W. 
H.  Whitsitt,  Professor  at  the  Baptist  Seminary, 
Louisville,  Kentucky — a  man  whose  breadth  of  view, 
acute  understanding  and  exceptional  skill  in  historic 
studies  lead  me  to  hope  that,  vigorously  supported 
by  his  brethren  in  the  faith,  he  shall  one  day  ex- 
ecute a  task  which,  up  to  this  time,  has  never  been 
satisfactorily  performed,  and  which  apparently  could 

2 


18  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

be  better  entrusted  to  no  other  person — the  writing 
of  a  history  of  the  Baptists." 

With  such  endorsement  as  tliat  of  de  Hoop  Scheffer, 
who  is  well  described  as"an  antiquary,  a  Dutchman,  a 
Mennonite;  who  has  spent  his  life  in  the  Low  coun- 
tries; who  has  the  official  custody  of  the  manuscript 
remains  of  this  very  controversy,  and  who  has  for 
many  years  been  a  diligent  and  intelligent  student 
of  the  history  of  the  Separatists  in  Holland," 
(Dexter,  True  Story,  p.  33,)  I  felt  that  my  conclu- 
sion was  entirely  secure.  In  addition  to  manuscript 
remains,  he  also  had  access  to  a  library  which  for 
the  subject  in  hand  can  hardly  be  excelled  anywhere. 
Almost  from  the  beginning  the  Mennonite  church  in 
Amsterdam  adopted  the  enlightened  custom  of  col- 
lecting printed  books.  A  catalogue  of  their  vast 
aggregation  has  been  issued  in  two  folio  volumes  as 
follows:  Catalogus  van  de  Bibliotheek  der  Ver- 
eenigde  Doopsgezinde  Gemeente  te  Amsterdam,  Am- 
sterdam, 1888.  In  this  work  the  titles  of  volumes 
relating  to  the  Mennonites  and  kindred  denomina- 
tions occupy  336  pages.  With  such  a  body  of  print- 
ed literature  at  command,  in  addition  to  so  many 
priceless  manuscripts,  and  with  his  admirable  indus- 
try and  insight,  it  must  be  conceded  that  Prof. 
Scheffer  is  entitled  to  speak  with  authority. 

The  last  month  of  the  year  1881  also  brought  a 
work  from  a  Congregational  author  in  support  of 
the    position   that   immersion   was    introduced    into 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  19 

England  in  the  year  1641.  It  is  entitled:  "The 
True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  the  Se-Baptist,  as  Told 
by  Himself  and  his  Contemporaries;  with  an  Inquiry 
Whether  Dipping  were  a  New  Mode  of  Baptism,  in 
England,  in  or  about  1G41;  and  Some  Consideration 
of  the  Historical  Value  of  Certain  Extracts  from  the 
Alleged  'Ancient  Records'  of  the  Baptist  Church  of 
Epworth,  Crowle  and  Butterwick  (Eng.),  Lately  Pub- 
lished and  Claimed  to  Suggest  Important  Modifica- 
tions of  the  History  of  the  17th  Century,  With  Collec- 
tions Towards  a  Bibliography  of  the  First  Two  Gen- 
erations of  the  Baptist  Controversy.  By  Henry  Mar- 
tyn  Dexter,  Boston,  1881."  Though  Dr.  Dexter  was 
pre-eminently  an  antiquarian,  he  was  likewise  a  mas- 
ter of  historical  research.  This  work  of  his  covers 
substantially  the  same  ground  as  that  traversed  by 
de  Hoop  Scheffer  in  De  Brownisten  te  Amsterdam, 
which  it  cites  on  more  than  one  occasion  (p.  2  and 
p.  33).  In  the  first  chapter  he  shows  that  Smyth 
and  Helwys  did  not  practice  immersion,  in  the  sec- 
ond he  brings  forward  proofs  that  it  was  only  intro- 
duced in  1641,  and  in  the  last  chapter  he  exposes  at 
considerable  length  and  with  admirable  learning  the 
clumsy  fraud  that  has  become  such  a  grief  and  pain 
in  connection  with  the  alleged  immersion  of  Smyth. 
Another  confirmation  of  so  much  weight  and  au- 
thority was  more  than  could  have  been  expected  in 
a  single  year.  My  thesis  was  now  supported  by  two 
of  the  most  distinguished  historians  of  Europe  and 


20  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

America.  The  learning  which  had  been  brought  to 
bear  in  the  works  they  produced  upon  it  was  as 
broad  and  select  as  has  been  displayed  on  any  ques- 
tion in  recent  times.  The  production  of  de  Hoop 
Scheft'er  remained  entirely  unknown  in  America,  but 
that  of  Dr.  Dexter  was  received  with  candid  in- 
terest. Among  the  Baptists  some  were  found  who 
spoke  words  of  recognition.  Frof.  A.  H.  J^ewman 
said,  "Let  no  Baptist  henceforth  risk  his  reputation 
for  scholarship  and  fair  dealing  by  denying  that 
John  Smyth  was  a  Se-Baptist,  or  that  his  baptism 
was,  as  regards  its  form,  mi  affusion.''''  He  also  ac- 
cepted the  year  1641  as  the  proper  date  for  the 
introduction  of  immersion  into  England,  and  styles 
the  Crowle  fraud  a  "festering  carcass." 

One  obstacle  in  the  way  of  these  researches  was 
found  in  the  obscurity  that  rested  upon  the  history 
of  immersion.  On  this  account  it  has  sometimes 
been  easy  to  lose  the  way,  and  fall  into  confusion  of 
thought.  To  remedy  that  defect  Prof,  de  Hoop 
Scheffer  found  it  desirable  to  prepare  his  Overzicht 
der  Geschiedenis  van  den  Doop  bij  Onderdompeling. 
Bijdrage  van  J.  G.  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  Overgedrukt 
nit  de  Yerslagen  en  Mededeelingen  der  Koninklijke 
Akademie  van  Wetenschappen.  Afdeeling  Letter- 
kunde,  2de  Reeks,  Deel  XII.  Amsterdam,  Johan- 
nes Mueller,  1882.  (Sketch  of  the  History  of  Bap- 
tism by  Immersion.  Contribution  by  J.  G.  de  Hoop 
Scheffer.     Printed  from  the  Memoirs  and  Communi- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  21 

cations  of  the  Koyal  Academy  of  Sciences.  De- 
partment Literature,  Second  Series,  Part  XII.  Am- 
sterdam, Johannes  Mueller,  1882.) 

In  this  work  is  set  forth  an  account  of  immersion 
as  the  act  of  baptism  during  the  early  Christian  cen- 
turies, in  which  is  shown  how  it  declined  since  the 
thirteenth  century  until  it  had  become  uncommon 
on  the  continent  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation, 
though  it  lingered  somewhat  later  in  England.  The 
facts  regarding  immersion  among  the  Anabaptists 
are  carefully  discussed,  the  author  claiming  that  very 
few  of  them  adopted  it,  and  showing  the  extent  to 
which  it  was  practiced  in  Poland  and  adjacent  coun- 
tries, the  manner  in  which  it  was  introduced  into 
Holland  in  1620,  and  in  England  in  1641.  This  is 
an  important  addition  to  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject and  serves  an  admirable  purpose  in  several  di- 
rections. 

In  the  United  States  an  epoch  was  introduced  in 
Baptist  historiography  by  the  appearance  in  1891  of 
"A  Short  History  of  the  Baptists,"  Philadelphia,  by 
Henry  C.  Yedder,  which  was  marlj;ed  by  strict  in- 
vestigation and  exactness  of  thought  and  statement. 
That  circumstance,  made  it  a  notable  performance. 
The  spirit  of  the  work  is  admirable.  Dr.  Yedder  is 
in  substantial  accord  with  the  positions  set  forth  by 
me,  and  of  late  has  kindly  embraced  more  than  one 
opportunity  to  declare  that  fact  anew  in  the  public 
prints. 


22  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Tlie  latest  work  in  this  field  appeared  in  the 
American  Church  History  Series,  and  is  entitled, 
"A  History  of  the  Baptist  Churches  in  tlie  United 
States.  By  A.  H.  Newman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Church  History,  McMaster  University,  Toronto, 
Canada."  New  York,  1894.  It  is  likewise  in  entire 
harmony  with  the  results  of  the  recent  investigations; 
the  author  expresses  his  adhesion  to  the  view  that 
immersion  was  introduced  into  England  in  IG-il. 
(History,  p.  80.) 

It  must  be  apparent  from  the  above  review  that 
the  advance  in  Baptist  history  is  not  any  sudden 
development.  It  has  proceeded  by  slow  degrees  for 
five  and  forty  years.  The  foundations  have  been 
securely  laid  in  wide  research  among  original 
documents.  Clear  light  has  dawned  at  last  on  this 
phase  of  Baptist  history. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  23 


II. 

BAPTISM  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

IN  the  earliest  times  immersion  prevailed  in  Eng- 
land as  elsewhere.  Apostolic  teaching  and 
practice  had  as  yet  experienced  no  marked  corrup- 
tion, in  this  direction  at  least.  Baptism  was  fre- 
quently performed  in  rivers;  beautiful  stories  are 
told  by  the  Venerable  Bede  concerning  the  labors 
of  Paulinus  in  the  River  Glen  and  the  River  Swale 
during  the  earlier  portion  of  the  seventh  century. 

The  era  of  baptisteries  had  not  yet  arrived,  but  in 
due  season  a  generation  appeared  who  forsook  the 
river  and  adopted  this  new  convenience.  Baptister- 
ies were  not  so  numerous  nor  so  artistic  in  England 
as  in  Italy;  yet  they  were  in  use  there,  and  remains 
of  some  of  them  are  claimed  to  be  worthy  of  atten- 
tion. (Robinson,  History  of  Baptism,  Boston,  1817, 
pp.  133-4). 

To  the  age  of  the  baptistery  succeeded  that  of 
the  font.  The  former  was  situated  outside  of  the 
church,  and  sometimes  a  building  was  erected  for 
its  accommodation.  Fonts  were  constructed  inside 
the  churches.  Their  dimensions  were  sufficient  for 
the  immersion  of  children,  and  the  use  of  fonts 
instead  of  baptisteries  would  appear  to  indicate  that 


24  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

the  immersion  of  adults  was  gradually  becoming  an 
unusual  observance.  Infant  baptism  was  apparently 
gaining  ground  against  adult  baptism,  a  tendency 
which  it  would  be  more  difficult  to  resist  as  the 
years  went  on. 

At  first  these  fonts  were  fairly  roomy  structures, 
(Robinson,  pp.  128-9).  In  the  course  of  time  they 
became  more  contracted,  but  throughout  the  Middle 
Ages  they  must  have  been  always  large  enough  for 
the  immersion  of  newborn  infants.  At  length,  in 
the  latter  portion  of  the  13th  century,  there  occur- 
red In  France  a  decided  change  of  sentiment  regard- 
ing the  act  of  baptism.  Both  Thomas  Aquinas  and 
Bonaventura,  a  number  of  years  before  their  death 
in  1274,  made  concessions  in  favor  of  affusion  and 
aspersion.  (De  Hoop  Scheffer,  Overzicht  der  Ge- 
schiedenis  van  den  Doop  bij  Onderdompeling.  Am- 
sterdam, 1882,  pp.  11,  12.) 

The  result  of  an  expression  of  that  kind  on  the 
part  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  theological  thought 
became  shortly  apparent.  There  was  wavering  in 
various  quarters.  The  Synod  of  Cologne  in  1280 
decreed  that  pouring  would  suffice  where  newborn 
children  were  in  peril  of  immediate  death;  the  Synod 
of  Nismes  in  1284  went  a  step  farther  in  the  same 
direction ;  a  synod  in  the  Netherlands  in  1287  opened 
the  gate  still  wider,  directing  the  officiating  priest 
not  to  immerse  the  head  of  the  child,  at  any  time, 
but  to  avoid  danger  by  pouring  water  three  times 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  25 

upon  the  crown  of  his  head;  and  in  1293  a  like  de- 
cree was  passed  by  the  Synod  of  Utrecht,  (Burrage, 
Act  of  Baptism,  Philadelphia,  pp.  116-119).  Here 
was  perhaps  the  earliest  instance  where  it  was  re- 
quired to  pour  water  on  the  head  while  the  body 
was  immersed. 

This  notable  defection  was  followed  in  1311  by 
the  Council  of  Ravenna,  which  decreed  that  "baptism 
is  to  be  administered  by  trine  aspersion  or  immer- 
sion," giving  preference  to  aspersion.  The  foun- 
dations were  gradually  breaking  up.  France,  Ger- 
many, Holland  and  Italy  were  all  more  or  less 
affected,  and  all  more  or  less  helpless  in  the  current 
that  had  set  against  the  primitive  form  of  baptism. 
But  England  in  her  isolation  was  as  yet  practically 
untouched.  Throughout  the  fourteenth  century  there 
is  but  one  sign  that  she  was  sensible  of  the  change 
that  had  been  going  forward  on  the  other  side  of  the 
channel.  Wyclif,  who  died  in  1384,  remarked  in  a 
discourse  on  baptism:  "Nor  is  it  material  whether 
they  be  dipped  once  or  thrice,  or  water  be  poured 
on  their  heads:  but  it  must  be  done  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  place  where  one  dwells."  Dr.  Wall, 
(History  of  Infant  Baptism.  Oxford,  1848.  Vol. 
2,  p.  397,)  endeavors  to  break  the  force  of  that 
statement,  but  without  success.  It  is  somewhat 
singular  that  only- this  one  concession  towards  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  has  yet  been  found  in  the  Church 
of  England  during  so  long  a  period  of  time.      It  has 


26  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

commonly  been  supposed  that  the  coldest  countries 
surrendered  immersion  the  soonest,  but  exactly  the 
opposite  is  the  real  state  of  the  case. 

Wyclif  gave  the  first  note  of  wavering  in  the 
England  of  the  later  Middle  Ages,  Since  he  was 
not  in  the  odor  of  orthodoxy,  his  opinion  was  not 
taken  up  by  a  chorus  of  councils  like  that  which 
greeted  the  utterances  of  Aquinas  and  Bonaventura 
in  the  thirteenth  century,  but  the  common  sort  of 
people  must  have  received  his  words  with  some  de- 
gree of  sympathy.  The  work  of  Lyndewode,  Dean 
of  the  Arches,  in  1422,  describing  the  English  Con- 
stitutions, declares  that  the  manner  of  baptizing 
infants  is  by  dipping,  and  yet  he  adds  a  note  to  say 
that  "This  is  not  to  be  accounted  to  be  of  the  es- 
sence of  baptism:  but  it  may  be  given  also  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling.  And  this  holds  especially  where 
the  custom  of  the  church  allows  it."  (Wall,  Vol.  2, 
p.  396).  Evidently  some  churches  upon  their  own 
responsibility  without  the  authority  of  any  council 
or  liturgy  must  have  already  undertaken  to  practice 
pouring  or  sprinkling  for  baptism. 

After  the  time  of  Lyndewode  innovations  began 
to  spring  up  more  rapidly,  especially  on  the  conti- 
nent. In  1482  the  Wurzburg  Liturgy  gave  the 
priest  a  choice  of  thrice  immersing  or  thrice  wash- 
ing the  infant  with  water:  in  1491  the  Bamberg 
Liturgy  prescribed  pouring  alone,  and  there  had 
been  even  earlier  instances  in  France  where  imraer- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  27 

sion  was  wholly  left  out  of  the  account.  Yet  in  the 
following  century  Erasmus  in  his  remarks  on  Cyp- 
rian's Letter  76  to  Magnus,  declares  not  without  a 
touch  of  contempt:  "Infants  are  poured  upon  in  our 
country;  they  are  immersed  in  England."  (Scheffer, 
Overzicht,  p.  18).  In  1533  Henry  VIII.  caused 
his  infant  daughter  Elizabeth  to  be  immersed  at 
Greenwich,  and  in  1537  his  infant  son  Edward  was 
immersed  at  Hampton  Court  Chapel.  Such  a  cere- 
mony would  have  been  possible  at  that  time  perhaps 
in  few  other  royal  households  of  Western  Christen- 
dom. 

However,  outside  pressure  was  becoming  percept- 
ible in  England.  The  Reformers,  Luther,  Zwingli 
and  Calvin,  while  dispensing  with  many  customs 
that  had  grown  up  in  connection  with  baptism  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  yet  made  no  change  in  the  rite 
itself,  as  the  same  was  practiced  in  the  regions  where 
they  lived.  Possibly  Luther  was  the  most  conserv- 
ative of  the  three,  and  would  have  been  well  pleased 
to  restore  immersion.  In  his  Sermon  on  Baptism 
published  in  1518  he  expresses  himself  to  that  effect, 
and  likewise  in  the  work  styled  "The  Babylonish 
Captivity,"  which  appeared  in  1520.  The  same  is 
true  of  his  Larger  Catechism  and  of  the  baptismal 
formulas  issued  in  1523  and  1526. 

But  he  found  that  the  current  was  too  strong,  and 
in  a  small  work  entitled  "How  One  Should  Proper- 
ly Baptize,"  etc.,  published  in  1523,  he  prescribed. 


■28  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

that  the  administrator  shall  "pour  water  upon  the 
candidate,  and  say  I  baptize  thee,"  etc.  Nearly  all 
the  liturgies  of  the  Lutheran  Church  indicate  that 
this  form  prevailed.    (Scheffer,  Overzicht,  pp.  19,20). 

The  Reformed  or  Presbyterian  Church,  with  which 
the  Church  of  England  was  for  a  season  somewhat 
more  closely  allied,  was  less  inclined  to  regard  the 
demands  of  conservatism,  and  therefore  was  more 
inclined  to  favor  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  Stras- 
burg  Order  of  Baptism,  issued  in  1525,  required 
pouring  and  ignored  immersion;  Zwingli  in  his  book, 
T^on  dem  Touff,  vom  Widertouff  uund  vom  Kinder- 
touflf,  Zurich,  1525,  referred  to  pouring  or  dipping 
as  the  general  custom  in  1525,  (Burrage,  pp.  133-1:); 
and  Zurich  issued  an  Order  of  Baptism  in  1535  en- 
joining the  minister  merely  to  pour  water  thrice 
upon  the  child,  (Burrage,  pp.  138-9).  A  few  years 
later  the  same  city  was  formally  to  forbid  immersion 
and  require  that  children  should  only  be  sprinkled 
thrice,  (Robinson,  History,  p.  484). 

Tyndale,  in  his  Doctrinal  Treatises,  1528,  Parker 
Society,  Cambridge,  1848,  p.  277,  indicates  that  it 
was  not  unheard  of  even  in  England  for  the  priest  to 
pour  water  upon  the  child's  head,  and  that  he  him- 
self approved  this  innovation.  His  words  are  as 
follows:  "Behold  how  narrowly  the  people  look  on 
the  ceremony.  If  aught  be  left  out,  or  if  the  child 
be  not  altogether  dipt  in  the  water;  or  if,  because 
the  child  is  sick,  the  priest  dare  not  plunge  him  into 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  2» 

the  water,  but  pour  water  on  his  head,  how  tremble 
they!  how  quake  they!  'How  say  ye,  Sir  John,' 
(say  they)  'is  this  child  christened  enough?  Hath  it 
his  full  Christendom  V     They  verily  believe  that  the 

child  is  not  christened Now  this  is  false 

doctrine,  verily." 

But  Henry  YIII.  had  an  iron  hand,  and  there  was 
apparently  no  official  retrograde  movement  as  long 
as  he  lived.  Wall  says  of  the  period  before  Edward 
YI.  (History,  Vol.  2,  p.  397),  "The  offices  or  litur- 
gies for  public  baptism  in  the  Church  of  England 
did  all  along,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  enjoin  dipping 
without  any  mention  of  pouring  or  sprinkling." 
Yet  the  time  of  change  had  come,  and  two  years 
after  the  death  of  Henry,  tlie  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  for  the  year  1549  required  indeed  the  ancient 
usage  of  trine  immersion,  but  allowed  that  if  the 
child  were  weak  it  should  suffice  to  pour  water  upon 
it.  This  is  understood  to  have  been  the  earliest 
official  recognition  of  a  practice  that  had  been  gain- 
ing headway  for  a  long  season. 

Other  changes  followed  more  rapidly.  In  1552" 
a  new  Prayer  Book  appeared  in  which  only  a  single 
immersion  was  enjoined,  and  pouring  was  again 
made  optional  in  case  of  weakness.  In  the  sad  days 
of  Queen  Mary  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  of  the 
country  were  scattered  on  the  continent,  and  so 
were  brought  into  closer  contact  with  the  sentiment 
and    practices    that    prevailed  there.      Numbers    of 


30  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

them  were  in  touch  with  Calvin  at  Geneva  who  prac- 
ticed pouring  exclusively  since  1536  and  had  openly 
published  his  Form  of  Administering  the  Sacra- 
ments in  1545,  in  which  immersion  was  omitted. 
(Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  400.)  By  that  means,  and  influenced 
through  the  atmosphere  which  existed  almost  every- 
where beyond  the  Channel,  these  men  were  rendered 
impatient  of  the  slower  pace  at  which  things  were 
moving  in  their  native  country.  To  one  who  sur- 
veys the  whole  situation  it  seems  a  marvel  that  the 
Church  of  England  should  have  held  out  so  long 
and  so  stoutly.  Still  the  limits  of  her  power  to  resist 
had  now  been  reached.  At  the  accession  of  Eliza- 
beth in  1558  the  exiles  returned  and  began  the  labor 
of  innovation.  The  queen  who  had  not  traveled 
abroad  naturally  used  her  endeavors  to  resist  them. 
In  1571  a  book  was  issued  under  her  auspices  in 
which  church  wardens  were  instructed  to  see  "that 
in  every  church  there  be  a  holy  founte,  not  a  hason, 
wherein  baptism  may  be  ministered,  and  it  be  kept 
comely  and  clean."  In  1584  another  book  appeared 
in  which  a  similar  item  is  found  to  the  effect  that 
"the  font  be  not  removed,  nor  that  the  curate  do 
baptize  in  parish  churches  in  any  hasons,  nor  in  any 
other  form  than  is  already  prescribed,"  etc.  (Kob- 
inson,  pp.  114,115.) 

The  queen  had  an  imperious  will,  but  she  could 
not  stand  against  the  movement  that  was  now  going 
forward.      It  had  been  started  by  Wyclif  as  early  as 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  31 

ISSi,  and  was  practically  completed  after  two  cen- 
turies of  struggle  and  delay.  The  fonts  were  re- 
moved from  the  churches  in  spite  of  Elizabeth's  au- 
thority. Dr.  Wall,  History,  vol.  2,  p.  401,  says 
that  "in  the  latter  times  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
during  the  reigns  of  King  James  and  of  King  Charles 
I.,  very  few  children  were  dipped  in  the  font." 

Thomas  Blake,  of  Tamworth,  indeed,  writing  in 
1645  (Infants  Freed  from  Anti-Christianism,  p.  1), 
says:  "I  have  been  an  eye-witness  of  many  infants 
dipped."  Here  he  seems  to  talk  like  an  adept  at 
special  pleading,  especially  as  on  page  4  of  the 
same  work  he  declares  in  more  moderate  terms,  "I 
have  seen  several  dipped."  (Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  402.) 
Perhaps  the  truth  is  stated  by  Dean  Stanley,  as  cited 
by  Dr.  Armitage  (History  of  the  Baptists.  New 
York,  1887,  p.  434),  who  says  that  according  to  the 
annals  of  the  English  Church  the  last  recorded  in- 
stances of  immersion  before  the  Restoration  were 
the  dipping  of  three  infant  sons  of  Sir  Robert  Shir- 
ley, in  the  reign  of  Charles  I. 

The  baptism  of  infants  in  the  Church  of  England 
had  long  since  crowded  out  the  baptism  of  adult  be- 
lievers. The  immersion  of  a  grown-up  person  as  a 
religious  observance  seems  to  liave  become  to  all 
intents  a  lost  art.  For  a  long  time  no  provision  ap- 
peared in  the  Prayer  Book  for  the  "Public  Baptism 
of  Such  as  are  of  Riper  Years,"  until  the  year  1661. 
Two  reasons  are  given  for  its  introduction  at  that 


32  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

time;  one  that  it  hud  become  necessary  "by  ye 
growth  of  Anabaptism,  through  ye  Licentiousness  of 
ye  late  Times  crept  in  amongst  us,"  and  the  other 
that  it  would  "be  allwaies  usefull  for  ye  baptizing 
of  Natives  in  our  Plantations,  and  others  converted 
to  ye  Faith."  (^Dexter.  True  Story  of  John  Smyth. 
Boston,  1881,  p.  23.  Cf.  Wall,  vol.  2,  pp.  321-2.) 
Baptists  were  about  that  time  making  their  influence 
felt;  moreover,  England  had  now  become,  what  she 
had  not  been  before,  a  commercial  and  colonizing 
nation. 

Generally  speaking,  the  Keformed  or  Presby- 
terian Church  was  indifferent,  if  not  opposed,  to  im- 
mersion. It  has  been  shown  above  how  Strasburg 
decided  against  it  in  1525,  Zurich  in  1535  and  Gen- 
eva in  1545.  When  the  Westminster  Divines,  who 
were  preparing  the  Directory  for  Public  Worship  of 
God,  came  to  discuss  this  subject  on  the  seventh  of 
August,  1644,  it  was  now  their  turn  to  reject  im- 
mersion as  their  continental  predecessors  had  done. 
This  rite  had  long  been  disused  among  Presby- 
terians, and  every  member  of  the  Assembly  was 
agreed  that  sprinkling  was  the  best  mode  of  bap- 
tism. The  question  at  issue  before  them  was  wheth- 
er immersion  should  be  tolerated  as  an  alternate 
form  of  baptism  and  allowed  to  stand  by  the  side  of 
sprinkling.  Nambers  felt  unwilling  to  go  on  record 
as  rejecting  a  New  Testament  usage  by  formal  ac- 
tion, and   hence  the  vote  was   close.      If  they  had 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  33 

allowed  immersion  to  stand,  it  is  likely  that  nobody 
in  their  communion  would  have  employed  it.  But 
their  sentiments  were  too  decided  even  to  allow  it  to 
stand.  Twenty-five  went  against  it,  while  only 
twenty-four  were  willing  to  concede  that  it  was  one 
of  the  modes  by  which  baptism  might  be  adminis- 
tered. (John  Lightfoot's  Works,  London,  1824, 
Yol.  13,  p.  300.)  This  was  the  most  radical  action 
against  immersion  which  up  to  that  time  had  ever 
been  taken  by  one  of  the  larger  denominations  of 
Christendom. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  though  England  moved 
at  some  distance  in  the  rear,  she  moved  neverthe- 
less. The  immersion  of  infants  was  practically  ex- 
tinct in  the  Church  of  England  by  the  year  1600. 
By  the  year  1644  the  Presbyterians  of  England  and 
Scotland  had  even  traveled  far  enough  to  decide  by 
a  formal  vote  in  the  Assembly  at  Westminster  that 
immersion  was  not  a  proper  form  in  which  to  ad- 
minister baptism,  an  extreme  to  which  the  Church 
of  England  has  not  yet  advanced.  The  immersion 
of  adults  had  become  so  far  unknown  that  it  could 
be  stated  without  reservation  in  the  Jessey  Church 
Records  for  the  year  1640  that  "none  had  then  so 
practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers." 


34  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


IV. 


BAPTISM  AMONG  THE  ANABAPTISTS  OP  THE  SIX- 
TEENTH AISID  EARLY  PORTION  OP  THE  SEVEN- 
TEENTH CENTURY  IN  ENGLAND. 

ANABAPTISTS  first  appeared  in  England  in  the 
earlier  portion  of  the  sixteenth  century.  On 
the  25th  of  May,  1535,  19  men  and  6  women,  all  of 
them  from  Holland,  were  arrested  on  the  charge  of 
being  Anabaptists.  (Stowe,  Chronicle,  p,  571.) 
The  city  of  Mnenster  was  at  that  moment  under 
siege,  and  was  captured  a  month  later.  In  1538 
six  others  were  taken,  who  were  also  from  Holland. 
(Stowe,  p.  576. )  Fuller,  in  his  (Uiurch  History,  in- 
timates that  they  had  come  over  in  the  hope  of  find- 
ing protection  on  account  of  the  prospective  marriage 
of  Henry  YIII.  to  Anne  of  Cleves.  (Crosby.  History 
of  the  English  Baptists.  London,  1738-10.  Vol. 
1,  p.  39.)  In  1539  16  men  and  15  women,  Ana- 
baptists, were  banished  from  England  and  went  to 
Delft,  Holland,  where  they  were  seized  by  the  au- 
thorities and  executed,  the  men  being  beheaded  and 
the  women  drowned.      (Crosby,  vol.  1,  p.  42.) 

The  Anabaptists  of  England  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury were  nearly  all  from  Holland.  Joan  Boucher, 
of  Kent,  an  English   woman,  was  an  exception,  but 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  35 

there  were  very  few  others.  The  celebrated  Mr. 
Fox,  in  a  letter  to  Queen  Elizalieth,  in  1575,  says: 
"I  understand  there  are  sonic  (Anabaptists)  here  in 
England,  tho'  not  English,  but  come  hither  from 
Holland,  "■''  *  *  and  we  li;ivc  great  reason  to 
give  God  thanks  on  this  account,  rliat  I  hear  not  of 
any  Englishman  that  is  iiK-liti'Ml  to  this  madness." 
(Crosby,    vol.  1,  p.  71.) 

But  none  of  the  Anabaptists  o-'  Holland  or  of  the 
adjacent  sections  of  Germ;iuy  were  immersionists. 
So  far  as  any  account  of  tncni  has  come  to  light, 
they  were  uniformly  in  the  piacrice  of  pouring  or 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  exccptmu-  the  Collegiants, 
who,  at  B.hynsburg,  began  to  itmncrse  in  1620. 

In  fact,  few  Anabaptists  anywhere  were  immer- 
sionists. The  Reformers.  Lntiicj-,  Zwingli  and 
Calvin,  as  we  have  seen,  qn  • -"ptcd  the  usage 

of  the  Catholic  Church   an  lo  contenrion  at 

all  about  the  act  of  baptism.  'vcr  custom  was 

current  regarding  this  point  ic  pcoph-  wliere 

they  labored,  was  embrace  .  <).      Poui-itiii- and 

sprinkling  were  current  aim  aMhm'c,     <"!  rliey 

were  accordingly  adopted  \^  -  in  pic 

The  same  remark  applies  i  il);ipti>        who 

insisted     upon    baptism    o'  ,     <>  ,1  rely 

made  any  contention  abon  c.    ;.;"         most 

always  practiced  pouring  oi' spMM!  Dr.'-       ii;izar 

Hubmeier,  one  of  their  lU'  -  mu  i    .      -iitial 

leaders,    describes    the   act  -\i\      >         lows: 


36  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

*'To  baptize  in  water  is  to  pour  outiDCwd  water  over 
the  confessor  of  his  sins,  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  command,  and  to  inscribe  him  in  the  number 
of  sinners  upon  his  own  confession  and  acknowledge- 
ment. So  has  John  baptized."  (Von  dem  Christen- 
lichen  Tauff  der  gUiubigen  durch  Balthasarn  Hiib- 
mor,  1525,  p.  5.)  "In  April,  1525,  it  being  Easter, 
the  customary  season  for  baptism,  Hubmeier  called 
his  followers  together  and  having  sent  for  a  pail  of 
water  solemnly  baptized  three  hundred  persons  at 
one  time."     (Burrage,  p.  131.) 

Felix  Mantz,  another  leader,  also  practiced  pour- 
ing. Under  date  of  February  7,  1525,  George 
Schad,  of  Zollikon,  near  Zurich,  testified,  "that  he 
had  passed  all  his  days  in  sin  and  blasphemy;  that 
he  had  been  greatly  distressed  on  this  account,  and 
that  he  had  prayed  to  God  for  grace  and  for  convic- 
tion of  sin,  and  God  manifested  his  grace  to  him  so 
that  he  was  convicted  of  sin.  Then  God  promised 
him  if  he  should  depart  from  sin  that  He  would  also 
forgive  his  sin.  That  promise  moved  him  greatly, 
and  he  asked  for  the  token  of  brotherly  love,  that 
he  might  do  to  his  neighbor  all  the  good  that  he  did 
to  himself.  Then  he  submitted  to  have  water  jjoured 
upon  him.,  and  Felix  Mantz  was  the  person  who  bap- 
tized him,"  (Egli,  Actensammlung  zur  Geschichte 
der  Zuercher  Reformation,  Zurich,  1879,  p.  283.) 
Another  instance  may  be  cited:  "Hans  Bruggbach, 
of  Zumikon,  stood  up  and  cried  out  how  great  a  sin- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  3T 

ner  he  was,  and  desired  that  they  should  pray  to 
God  for  him.  Then  George  Blaurock  asked  him 
whether  he  desired  the  grace  of  God,  He  replied, 
yes.  Then  Mantz  stood  up  and  said,  Who  shall  hin- 
der me  from  baptizing  him?  Then  Blaurock  an- 
swered, 'Nobody.'  Thereupon  Mantz  took  a  dipper 
of  water  and  haj)tized  him  in  the  name  of  God  the 
Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost." 
(Egli,  p.  284.      Cf.  Burrage,  p.  130.) 

It  used  to  be  said  that  the  word  Katabaptist,  so 
often  applied  to  Anabaptists,  by  their  opponents 
during  the  Reformation  period,  contained  indisput- 
able proof  that  they  were  immersionists.  The  prep- 
osition Jcata,  ill  its  ])rimary  or  local  usage,  means 
do'wn^  and  so,  it  was  argued,  Katabaptist  must  have 
been  one  who  baptized  downwards,  that  is,  im- 
mersed. But  just  as  aiia,,  meaning  primarily  up^ 
came  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  again^  so  hata^  in 
several  technical  terms,  means  against^  and  Prof. 
Scheffer  has  fully  shown  that  in  the  usage  of  con 
temporary  authors  this  was  its  meaning  in  the  word 
under  consideration,  and  that  Zwingli  and  others  in 
styling  tliem  Katabaptists  meant  only  that  they  were 
"against"  the  commonly  accepted  baptism.  (Over- 
zicht,  pp.  24-26.)  Thus  the  same  persons  were 
called  Anabaptists,  or  Rebaptizers,  because  they 
baptized  on  profession  of  faith  those  who  had  been 
christened  in  infancy,  and  Katabaptists,  or  opponents 
of  infant  baptism.      While  the  great  body  of  Ana- 


38  A  QUESTION  [N  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

baptist  believers  practiced  pouring  or  sprinkling  for 
baptism,  there  were  a  few  exceptions  in  favor  of 
immersion.  John  Kessler,  in  his  Chronicle  of  the 
Reformation  in  St.  Gall,  called  Sabbata  (vol.  1,  p. 
262),  says:  "Wolfgang  Uolman  encountered  Con- 
rad Grebel  on  the  journey  to  Schaffhausen,  and 
while  with  him  was  so  highly  impressed  with  Ana- 
baptism  that  he  would  not  simply  be  poured  upon 
with  water  out  of  a  dish,  but,  being  entirely  naked, 
he  was  pressed  down  and  covered  over  in  the 
Rhine."      (Scheffer,  Overzicht,  p.  23.) 

Frof.  Scheffer  allows  himself  to  assert  in  this  con- 
nection that  the  example  of  Uolman  was  followed 
by  no  other  person,  but  that  is  perhaps  an  extreme 
position.  The  people  of  St.  Gall  whom  Grebel  bap- 
tized in  the  Sitter  River  on  Palm  Sunday  of  1525  it 
is  likely  were  immersed.  Scheffer's  reason  for  call- 
ing this  in  question  (Overzicht,  p.  23)  is  that  Grebel, 
with  his  associates  and  successors  in  the  Anabaptist 
faith,  from  that  day  to  the  present,  have  always 
baptized  by  a  handful  of  water  merely,  and,  there- 
fore, that  he  could  not  have  employed  immersion  on 
this  occasion.  One  naturally  hesitates  to  challenge 
the  conclusions  of  a  Mennonite  scholar  of  so  much 
ability  and  distinction:  but  it  is  admitted  that  Grebel 
immersed  Uolman  in  the  Rhine,  and  it  is  possible 
that  he  also  immersed  numbers  of  people  who  fol- 
lowed him  from  St.  Gall  to  the  Sitter  River.  Frof. 
Scheffer  replies  to  this  by  pointing  out  that  immer- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  39 

sion  is  expressly  described  where  Uolman  was  bap- 
tized in  the  Rhine,  and  that  it  cannot  be  conceded 
on  the  banks  of  the  Sitter  River  without  a  like 
definite  statement.  Yet  it  is  not  easy  to  discover 
any  other  reason  why  Grebel  and  his  friends  should 
journey  as  far  as  the  river  over  a  difficult  road  and 
hold  their  worship  in  tiie  open  air  upon  its  banks. 

The  Benedictine  monk  Clement  Sender,  an  eye- 
witness, describes  the  usage  of  the  Anabaptists  of 
Augsburg  in  this  regard,  and  Dr.  Theodore  Keim, 
in  his  paper  on  Ludwig  Hetzer  (Jahrbuecher  fiir 
Deutsche  Theologie,  Stuttgart,  1856,  p.  278),  repro- 
duces the  substance  of  his  testimony.  "The  act  of 
baptism,"  he  says,  "was  administered  in  the  River 
Lech,  the  men  being  naked  and  the  women  wearing 
bathing-trousers;  or  in  times  of  persecution  it  was 
administered  simply  by  sprinkling  the  forehead  in 
cellars  and  barnyards."  In  this  connection  he  men- 
tions the  wife  of  a  stonemason,  Adolf  Duclier,  "who 
during  the  absence  of  her  husband  at  Vienna  three 
days  in  the  Holy  Week  of  1527  opened  her  house, 
which  was  favorably  situated  on  the  River  Lech,  for 
the  purpose  of  baptizing." 

No  sufficient  reason  appears  for  calling  in  question 
the  authority  of  Sender.  If  it  be  allowed  to  stand 
then  we  must  conclude  that  the  Anabaptists  of  Augs- 
burg at  the  most  flourishing  moment  of  their  exist- 
ence, when  their  church  numbered  1100  members, 
practiced  immersion   as  well   as  sprinkling.      Prof. 


40  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Scheffer  is  not  able  to  understand  why  Sebastian 
Franck,  who  lived  not  far  away  at  Ulm,  and  de- 
scribed in  his  Chronicles  (1536)  with  the  greatest 
detail  a  number  of  Anabaptist  sects  should  not  have 
heard  of  such  an  unusual  occurrence  as  immersion 
at  Augsburg  (Overzicht,  p.  27).  The  argument  from 
silence  is  not  always  conclusive.  The  testimony  of 
Sender  must  be  allowed  to  stand  until  some  better 
reasons  shall  be  advanced  to  overthrow  it.  If  my 
view  is  sustained  it  must  follow  that  immersion  was 
practiced  at  two  points  at  least  by  the  Anabaptists  of 
the  Reformation  period,  namely,  at  St.  Gall,  in 
Switzerland,  and  Augsburg,  in  Bavaria.  The  ques- 
tion has  been  mooted  as  to  what  proportion  of  the 
whole  number  of  Anabaptist  believers  were  immer- 
sionists,  but  the  data  for  a  correct  conclusion  are 
not  satisfactory.  Some  would  say  that  possibly  one 
in  twenty  of  them  may  have  been  immersionists, 
whilst  others  would  establish  the  proportion  as  no 
greater  than  one  in  a  hundred. 

There  were  immersing  Anabaptists  in  Poland, 
Silesia,  Lithuania  and  Pomerania  (Scheffer,  Over- 
zicht, p.  32).  The  common  impression  is  that  these 
were  derived  from  St.  Gall,  in  Switzerland.  Scat- 
tered by  persecution  the  Swiss  Anabaptists  were 
forced  to  travel  into  many  countries,  and  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  some  of  them  found  their  way  to  th6 
countries  mentioned.  But  Scheffer  in  the  work  al- 
ready cited  has  assumed  a  new  position  on  that  sub- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  41 

ject,  declaring  that  baptism  of  no  kind  was  practiced 
among  the  Polish  believers  until  they  introduced 
immersion  in  1575.  In  the  previous  year  a  cate- 
chism, the  first  on  record  in  Poland  that  required 
this  rite  for  professed  believers,  was  published  at 
Cracow.  Martin  Czechowitz,  pastor  at  Wilna  and 
later  at  Lublin,  he  represents  to  have  been  responsi- 
ble for  this  change.  (Overzicht,  p.  31.)  He  likewise 
affirms  that  Czechowitz  was  induced  to  prefer  im- 
mersion as  the  act  of  baptism  solely  for  the  reason 
that  the  immersion  of  infants  was  still  customary 
among  Catholics  and  Protestants  alike,  because  the 
countries  in  question  were  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  Greek  Church,  where  it  was  the  only  form  of 
administering  the  ordinance.  (Overzicht,  p.  33.) 
The  Unitarians  of  Poland,  who  had  discontinued  the 
use  of  baptism,  were  also  influenced  by  these  condi- 
tions so  far  as  to  come  out  in  favor  of  immersion  in 
their  catechism  of  1609,  which  was  reprinted  in  1659' 
and  1680.      (Overzicht,  p.  37.) 

Several  of  these  statements  have  not  yet  been 
completely  established  by  proofs.  It  is  just  possible 
that  immersionists  may  have  existed  in  Poland  be- 
fore the  appearance  of  the  Catechism  at  Cracow  in 
1574,  and  that  they  may  have  obtained  their  prac- 
tice from  Switzerland  rather  than  from  the  Greek 
Church.  This  view  appears  to  have  about  as  firm 
historical  support  as  the  one  set  forth  above. 

In  general,  then,  it  may  be  declared  that  the  very 


42  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

small  number  of  immersing  Anabaptists  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe  were  confined  to  regions  remote 
from  Holland  whence  it  has  been  shown  that  the 
Anabaptists  of  England  during  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury were  derived. 

The  Anabaptists  of  Holland  appear  to  have  been, 
without  exception,  engaged  in  the  practice  of  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling.  Melchior  Hoffman  was  under- 
stood and  represented  among  them  as  their  "Father." 
It  was  due  to  his  activity  that  anabaptism  was  trans- 
planted from  Southern  to  Northern  Germany,  (Kel- 
ler, Geschichte  der  Wiedertaufer,etc. ,  Muenster,  1880, 
p.  121),  and  Hoffman  practiced  pouring.  Cornelius 
(Geschichte  des  Muensterischen  Aufruhr's,  Leipzig, 
1855,  vol.  2,  p.  222,)  says  that  "in  the  sacristy  of  the 
Great  Church  at  Emden  Hoffman  could  venture 
■openly  to  administer  baptism  in  the  year  1530." 
Hast  (Geschichte  der  Wiedertaeufer,  Muenster,  1836, 
p.  255, )  asserts  upon  the  authority  of  the  anabaptist 
Ubbo  Philipps  that  300  persons  were  baptized  by 
Hoffman  out  of  a  large  bucket  on  this  occasion. 
The  act  of  baptism  could  not  have  been  immersion, 
in  this  case. 

The  "Confession  of  the  Two  Sacraments"  that 
was  composed  by  Bernard  Rothmann  and  issued  at 
Muenster  on  the  8th  of  October,  1537,  is  in  some 
respects  a  singular  performance.  It  seems  to  par- 
take of  the  indecision  that  was  the  bane  of  Roth- 
inann's  character,  and  which  probably  more  than 
.anything  else  was  the  cause  of  the  disaster  at  Muen- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  43 

■ster.  He  talks  as  bravely  as  could  be  desired  about 
"plunging  into  the  water,"  "plunging  under  the 
water,"  "thrusting  into  the  water,"  and  yet  he  turns 
about  and  disappoints  every  expectation  as  follows: 
"to  baptise  signifies  to  plunge  into  the  water,  to  im- 
merse in  water,  and  baptism  signifies  an  immersion 
•or  sprinkling  xoith  i.vater.''''  (De  Hoop  Scheti'er, 
Overzicht,  pp.  26-7).  Baptizing  and  sprinkling 
were  in  his  view  synonymous  terms.  Scheffer 
(Overzicht,  p.  27,)  also  directs  attention  to  the  cir- 
cumstance that  he  describes  as  a  "thrusting  into  the 
water"  the  baptism  of  the  Evangelicals,  who  through- 
out Lower  Germany  employed  no  other  rite  than 
Bprinkling  and  pouring. 

No  baptisms  were  performed  at  Muenster  or  else- 
where under  the  "Confession  of  the  Two  Sacra- 
ments" and  hence  it  is  of  no  special  consequence  in 
this  history.  Before  Rothmann  could  make  up  his 
mind  to  go  forward  and  begin  the  work  of  rebaptiz- 
ing  the  reins  had  slipped  from  his  hands  and  Jan 
Mathys,  of  Holland,  the  Prophet,  had  obtained  con- 
trol of  the  Anabaptist  movement  at  Muenster.  Two 
of  his  emissaries  appeared  there  on  the  5th  of  January, 
1534,  and  baptized  Rothmann  himself  together  with 
the  rest  of  the  preachers.  As  the  work  was  begun 
and  prosecuted  in  Rothmann 's  house,  (Cornelius, 
vol.  2,  p.  234,)  the  rite  was  probably  administered 
by  pouring;  at  least  that  was  the  case  in  all  later  in- 
stances where  one  can  obtain  any  distinct  view  of 
the  ceremony. 


44  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

For  example,  on  Friday  the  2Ttli  of  February, 
1535,  all  who  remained  in  the  city  were  required  to 
submit  to  baptism,  and  an  eyewitness  describes  the 
proceedings  as  follows:  "There  stood  upon  the  mar- 
ket place  three  or  more  preachers  and  baptized  the 
people.  The  preachers  said  to  the  people  whom 
they  baptized  that  they  should  turn  from  their  sins 
and  work  righteousness;  and  they  had  a  pail  of  water 
standing  before  them,  and  the  people  went  upon 
their  knees  before  the  preachers,  and  the  preachers 
haptized  the  people  with  three  handfulls  of  water  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Cornelius,  Berichte  der  Augenzeugen 
ueber  das  Muensterische  Wiedertaeuferreich.  Muen- 
ster,  1853,  p.  20). 

Let  the  following  suffice  as  instances  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  baptism  in  private  houses  was  later 
performed  at  Muenster:  "Frau  Yan  der  Recke  was 
first  in  Rothmann's  house,  where  the  gospel  wa& 
proclaimed  to  herself  and  her  daughters.  Then  one 
of  the  daughters  fell  upon  her  knees  and  received 
baptism,  afterwards  the  other,  and  last  of  all  the 
mother."     (Cornelius,  Berichte,  p.  409). 

No  other  act  of  baptism  appears  to  have  been 
practiced  by  Anabaptists  anywhere  in  this  portion 
of  the  country.  We  have  exact  descriptions  of  the 
baptism  of  a  number  in  the  year  1534  and  1535  at 
Maastricht,  Holland,  where  there  was  a  considerable 
body  of  them  in  close  touch  with  the  authorities  at 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  45 

Muenster.  Some  of  these  may  be  cited  as  specimens. 
Bartholomeus  van  den  Berge,  "being  asked  in  what 
manner  he  was  rebaptized  replied  that  the  baptizer 
took  water  out  of  a  small  dish  and  spoke  thus:  I  bap- 
tize thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Cxhost."  (Jos.  Habets,  De  Wederdoopers  Te 
Maastricht.      Roermond,  1877,  p.  136). 

Mente  Jan  Heynen,  stepdaughter  of  the  preced- 
ing, "being  asked  in  what  manner  she  was  rebap- 
tized, replied:  The  baptizer  took  spring  water  and 
baptized  her  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost."      (Habets,  p.  138). 

Mathys  Spangemecker,  testifies  "that  he  was  re- 
baptized  at  the  house  of  Jan  van  Ginke,  the  younger, 

in  the  garret  of  the  house, and  that  Herr 

Henrich  baptized  him  with  water  upon  his  head  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost." 
(Habets,  pp.  143-4). 

Heynrik  Tymmerman  "says  that  when  he  was 
baptized,  Jan  the  Landlord  of  the  house  was  present, 
and  his  brother  Michael; that  Jan  the  Land- 
lord brought  him  there.  Furthermore  he  says  that 
while  he  was  being  baptized  he  was  kneeling  down 
upon  his  knees."     (Habets,  p.  152). 

Bouterwek,  Zur  Literatur  und  Geschichte  der 
Wiedertaufer,  Bonn,  1864,  pp.  83-87,  gives  the  tes- 
timony of  a  number  of  Anabaptists  of  Wesel,  Hol- 
land, during  the  period  in  question  which  shows 
that  in  this  city  also  the  rite  was  regularly  adminis- 
tered by  sprinkling  and  pouring. 


46  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

An  incorrect  impression  regarding  the  act  of  bap- 
tism as  administered  by  Menno  Simons  was  long- 
current  in  our  country,  but  that  excellent  his- 
torian, Dr.  Burrage,  finally  corrected  a  blunder  in 
the  translation  upon  which  it  was  established.  He 
says,  Act  of  Baptism,  p.  140:  "It  has  been  supposed 
that  in  a  passage  in  his  Explanation  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism in  the  folio  edition  of  his  works,  p.  419,  Menno 
expressed  his  own  view  of  the  act  of  baptism,  and  his 
words  have  been  translated  by  Morgan  Edwards  and 
others  as  follows:  'After  we  have  searched  ever  so 
diligently,  we  shall  find  no  other  baptism  besides 
dipping  in  water  which  is  acceptable  to  God  and 
maintained  in  his  word.' 

"  'But,'  adds  Dr.  Burrage,  'the  passage  is  not 
thus  correctly  rendered.  What  Menno  has  in  view 
is  the  representation  that  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
taught  two  kinds  of  baptism,  that  of  believers  and 
that  of  infants;'  and  (with  respect  to  that  point)  he 
says:  'However  diligently  we  seek,  night  and  day, 
yet  we  find  no  more  than  one  baptism  in  water  that 
is  pleasing  to  God,  expressed  and  contained  in  his 
■word — namely,  this  baptism  on  faith.'"  The  last 
clause,  which  is  so  essential  to  the  meaning,  is  not 
found  in  the  passage  translated  by  Morgan  Edwards, 
who  also  made  a  mistake  in  regard  to  the  word  doop- 
sel  as  employed  by  Menno.  (Materials  Towards  a 
History  of  the  Baptists  in  Pennsylvania.  Philadel- 
phia, 1770,  p.  93,  note.) 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  4T 

Menno's  most  definite  expression  touching  the 
act  of  baptism  is  found  in  the  folio  edition  of  his 
works  (1681),  p.  22,  where  he  says:  "I  certainly 
think  that  these  and  similar  commands  (to  love  one's 
enemies,  to  crucify  the  flesh  and  the  lusts  thereof) 
are  more  painful  and  burdensome  to  perverted  flesh, 
which  is  everywhere  so  prone  to  walk  in  its  own 
way,  than  it  is  to  receive  a  hcmdful  of  water.''''  After 
citing  the  above  passage,  Scheffer  says:  "A  hand- 
ful of  water,  that  is  to  say,  simple  pouring  with 
water,  was  in  use  among  the  Anabaptists  during  the 
first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  both  in  Switzer- 
land, where  they  first  arose,  and  also  in  the  coun- 
tries whither  they  had  extended  themselves,  such  as 
Upper  Germany  (with  the  single  exception  of  Augs- 
burg), and  the  western  portions  of  the  Empire,  as 
Belgium  and  the  Netherlands."  (Overzicht,  p.  28.) 
It  has  been  intimated  that  his  position  may  be  ex- 
treme, regarding  the  small  extent  to  which  immer- 
sion was  adopted  among  the  Anabaptists  of  Switzer- 
land, but  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  correctness 
of  the  contention  that  among  the  Mennonites  or 
other  Anabaptists  of  Holland  and  adjacent  countries 
there  never  existed  at  any  period  such  a  custom  as 
immersion. 

As  was  indicated  above,  historical  records  show 
that  the  Anabaptists  of  England  during  the  sixteenth 
and  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  came 
from  Holland.  These  being  in  the  practice  of  pour- 
ing, it  follows  conclusively  that  none  of  the  Ana- 


48  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

baptists  of  En^^land  during  the  period  mentioned 
were  immersionists.  That  incontestable  deliverance 
of  history  has  now  and  then  been  called  in  question 
because  Thomas  Fuller,  in  his  Church  History  of 
Britain,  published  in  1655,  when  treating  of  certain 
Hollanders  who  were  brought  to  trial  in  1538  adds 
that  "these  Anabaptists  for  the  main  were  but  Do- 
natists  new  dipt."  (Crosby,  vol,  1,  p.  39.)  The 
times  had  passed  by  in  England  when  everybody 
who  was  christened  had  to  be  dipped,  but  this 
learned  and  witty  author  was  well  aware  of  that  old 
usage  and  of  the  fact  that  it  was  no  longer  in  vogue. 
Tet  "dipped"  was  still  in  use  as  a  synonym  for 
"christened."  Mr.  Fuller  was  fond  of  the  allitera- 
tion "Donatists  new  dipt,"  and  employed  the  ex- 
pression for  no  other  purpose  than  to  indicate  that 
the  Anabaptists  were  but  Donatists  with  a  new  name. 
He  intended  to  pronounce  no  opinion  whatever  on 
the  question  whether  these  men,  who  lived  more 
than  a  hundred  years  before  the  time  at  which  he 
wrote,  employed  pouring  or  immersion  for  baptism. 
In  conclusion,  the  general  result  may  be  stated 
that  few  Anabaptists  of  any  country  were  immer- 
sionists, and  that  none  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Eng- 
land in  the  sixteenth  and  first  half  of  the  seven- 
teenth centuries  were  immersionists.  Therefore  the 
■Jessey  Church  Records  were  entirely  in  the  right,  as 
far  as  English  Anabaptists  were  concerned,  when 
they  declared  in  1640  that  "none  had  then  so  prac- 
ticed in  England  to  professed  believers," 


A  QUESTION  TN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  49 


V. 


BAPTISM  AMONG  THE  FOLLOWERS  OF  JOHN  SMYTH 
AND  THOMAS  HELWYS. 

JOHN  SMYTH  opened  his  public  career  as  a 
preacher  in  the  Established  Church  at  Lincoln. 
Most  authorities  represent  that  he  continued  there 
until  the  year  1602,  when  he  laid  down  his  office  and 
left  the  State  Church.  (Scheffer,  De  Brownisten  te 
Amsterdam,  etc.,  Amsterdam,  1881,  p.  80.)  But  I 
am  inclined  to  fix  the  date  in  1603,  for  the  reason 
that  I  '^discovered  in  the  Library  of  Emmanuel  Col- 
lege at  Cambridge,  in  the  summer  of  1880,  a  small 
volume  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been  the  author. 
Following  is  the  title:  The  bright  morning  starre,  or 
the  resolution  and  exposition  of  the  22  Psalme, 
preached  publickely  in  foure  sermons  at  Lincoln,  by 
John  Smyth,  preacher  of  the  citie.  Printed  1603. 
Scheffer  himself  (p.  80,  note  5)  is  somewhat  inclined 
to  the  opinion,  based  on  the  existence  of  this  book, 
that  Smyth  remained  in  the  Establishment  at  least 
during  a  portion  of  the  year  1603. 

He   next    became  pastor  of  a  Brownist   or  Inde- 
pendent Church,  collected  perhaps  by  his  own  ex- 

■■="My  friend.  Prof.  Whitsitt,  found  a  volume  of  his  sermons  in  the  Library  of 
Emmanuel  College,  C'aiuhridge,  under  the  title:  The  briglit  morning  starre," 
&c.    Schetter,  De  Brownisten,  p.  7'J,  note  3. 


50  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

ertions,  at  Gainsborough  on  the  Trent  (Scheffer,  De 
Brownisten,  pp.  80-1),  where  he  was  very  active 
and  successful  for  several  years.  The  representa- 
tion that  he  was  at  one  time  vicar  of  Gainsborough 
appears  to  lack  support.  The  church  of  John  E.ob- 
inson  which  went  over  to  Holland  in  1608,  and  sent 
a  portion  of  its  members  to  New  England  in  1620 
was  an  outgrowth  of  Smyth's  labors  at  Gains- 
borough (Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  Seen  in  its 

f     Literature,  New   York,  1880,  p.  316.       Scheffer,  p. 

'       84,  note  6).      Surely  he  builded  wiser  than  he  knew. 
It  was  indirectly  due  to  the  labors  of  Smyth  that  the 

\      Pilgrim  Fathers  later  became  established  at  Plymouth 
\  in  New  England. 

Possibly  it  was  in  October  or  November,  1606, 
that  Smyth  got  away  from  England  to  Amsterdam 
with  a  company  of  his  brethren,  leaving  those  who 
remained  behind  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Mr.  Rob- 
inson and  their  teacher  Richard  Clyfton.  (Scheffer, 
pp,  8-4-5 ).  Smyth  and  his  followers  did  not  unite 
themselves  to  the  church  of  Johnson  and  Ainsworth 
which  had  been  established  already  a  number  of 
years  in  Amsterdam,  but  organized  a  church  of  their 
own  that  was  known  as  the  Second  English  Church, 
the  other  being  commonly  designated  as  the  Ancient 
Church.  (Smyth,  Differences  of  the  Churches  of 
V  the  Separation,  1608,  title  page.) 
\-  Falling  under  the  influence  of  the  Waterland  Men- 
nonites  Mr.  Smyth  soon  altered  his  opinions  and, 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  51 

perhaps  iu  October,  1608,  became  an  Anabaptist. 
Being  a  man  of  singular  power  in  many  directions, 
it  seems  likely  that  he  was  able  to  carry  with  him 
the  entire  membership  of  the  Second  English  Church 
(Scheffer,  p.  104);  it  is  not  known  that  a  single 
one  of  them  refused  to  join  him  in  the  new  venture. 
The  whole  number  was  about  forty  (Scheffer,  p.  104). 

Here  is  the  earliest  Anabaptist  church,  that  was\ 
composed  exclusively  of  English  people,  and  yet  it  \ 
did  not  exist  on  English  soil.  Not  many  days  after 
the  work  had  been  accomplished,  Mr.  Smyth  con- 
cluded that  he  had  acted  hastily.  Coming  into 
■closer  intercourse  with  the  Mennonites  he  was  in- 
<luced  to  believe  that  the  baptism  which  he  had 
administered  to  himself  and  his  people  was  not  quite 
orderly,  and  to  regret  the  course  which  he  had  pur- 
sued. His  reflections  must  have  been  made  known 
to  his  people  as  early  as  January  or  February,  1609, 
and  possibly  efforts  were  already  on  foot  to  induce 
them  in  turn  to  enter  the  Mennonite  communion. 
(Scheffer,  p.  127). 

The  church  was  apparently  of  one  mind  in  becom- 
ing Anabaptists  and  receiving  adult  baptism,  but 
when  this  new  proposition  was  advanced  differences 
appeared  that  could  not  be  allayed.  Yet  his  power 
was  so  great  that  17  women  and  14  men  united  with 
him  in  the  purpose  to  join  the  Mennonites.  These 
required  the  English  brethren  to  subscribe  a  peti- 
tion  expressing  sorrow  for  the  disorderly  baptism. 


52  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

and  requesting  to  be  received  into  their  fellowsliip. 
A  copy  of  this  petition  somewhat  incorrectly  printed 
is  given  by  Evans,  Early  English  Baptists,  London, 
1862,  vol.  1,  pp.  244-5;  an  English  translation  of 
the  same  appears  p.  209.  The  original  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Smyth  exists  in  the  archives  of  the  Men- 
nonite  Church  at  Amsterdam  (Scheffer,  p.  128.) 

In  addition  the  Mennonites  required  a  Confession 
of  Faith,  in  order  to  satisfy  themselves  that  the  the- 
ological opinions  of  the  English  were  the  same  as 
their  own.  This  Confession  is  published  in  English 
by  Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  253.  The  original  in  Latin, 
also  in  the  handwriting  of  Smyth,  is  found  in  the 
Archives  of  the  Amsterdam  Church,  and  has  been 
published  by  SchejBfer,  p.  169. 

Thirty-two  people  had  set  their  hands  to  the  peti- 
tion desiring  admission  to  the  Mennonite  commun- 
ion. The  others,  eight  or  ten  in  number,  refused  to 
take  such  a  step.  They  regarded  the  movement  to- 
wards the  Mennonites  in  the  light  of  a  sin  against 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  their  intention  to  remain 
where  they  were  and  walk  in  the  light  whereunto 
they  had  attained.  That  small  company  by  bravely 
standing  their  ground  at  a  critical  period  became  the 
founders  of  the  body  of  Christian  people  which  sub- 
sequently acquired  the  title  of  General  Baptists  in 
England.  Richard  Clyfton,  an  eye  witness,  in  "A 
plea  for  infants  and  elder  people  concerning  their 
baptisme,  or  a  processe  of  the  passages  between  Mr. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  53 

John  Smyth  and  Richard  Clyfton,  Amst.,  IGIO,  says, 
according  to  Scheffer,  p.  129  (note),  that  '''■not  above 
ten  j)&t"S07is''''  were  of  the  party.  The  male  members 
were  Thomas  Helwys,  Wm,  Piggott,  Thos.  Seamer 
and  John  Murton  (Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  210),  the  others 
being,  as  is  supposed,  females. 

As  soon  as  Helwys  heard  of  the  petition  of  Smyth 
and  his  friends  requesting  to  be  admitted  to  the  Men- 
nonite  church  they  entered  a  protest  written  in  Latin, 
and  published  by  Scheffer,  De  Brownisten,  p.  172, 
announcing  that  they  had  already  excluded  the  of- 
fenders for  their  sin  and  desiring  the  Mennonites  to 
beware  of  them.  The  Mennonites,  possibly  hoping 
that  they  might  make  peace  between  the  warring 
elements  also  requested  Helwys  and  his  friends  to 
submit  a  Synopsis  of  their  Faith,  which  was  given 
in  the  same  hand  and  language  as  the  protest  and  is 
published  in  the  above  mentioned  work  by  Scheffer, 
p.  173.  Not  content  with  the  protest  which  they 
had  made  in  Latin,  Helwys  and  his  brethren  tried  it 
over  again,  perhaps  with  superior  effect,  in  English, 
under  date  of  March  12,  1609.  (Evans,  vol.  1,  pp. 
209-11.  The  date,  1610,  given  at  the  bottom  of 
page  210,  is  wrong  by  one  year.      Scheffer,  p.  135). 

These  protests,  one  in  Latin  and  the  other  in 
English,  had  the  effect  of  putting  off  the  day  when 
the  Mennonites  should  receive  Smyth  and  his  peo- 
ple into  their  communion.  Helwys  and  his  party  of 
nine,  who  did  not  hesitate,  after  excommunicating 


54  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Smyth  and  his  followers,  to  the  number  of  thirty- 
one,  to  denominate  themselves  the  '•'•Tnie  Christian 
English  Church  at  Amsterdam''''  (Scheffer,  p.  173), 
were  eager  to  preserve  the  closest  relations  with  their 
Mennonite  fellow-Christians,  and  to  prevent  these 
from  drawing  nigh  to  their  adversaries. 

Before  the  middle  of  the  year  1611  (Scheffer,  p. 
I'lS),  the  brave  little  party  of  ten  issued  another  con- 
fession, not  simply  for  the  benefit  of  the  Mennon- 
ites,  but  also  for  the  instruction  of  the  general  pub- 
lic, which  they  styled  "A  Declaration  of  Faith  of 
English  People,  remaining  at  Amsterdam  in  Hol- 
land." (Crosby,  vol.  2,  Appendix  I.)  They  did 
not  "remain""  much  longer  at  Amsterdam;  almost  as 
soon  as  the  Declaration  had  left  the  press,  they  also 
appear  to  have  left  Holland  for  England.  (Scheffer, 
p.  152.) 

Something  more  than  a  year  afterwards  Mr.  Smyth 
fell  into  his  last  illness;  he  was  buried  at  the  Nieuwe 
Kerk,  at  Amsterdam  (Scheffer,  p.  142),  on  the  first 
of  September,  1612.  After  his  death  his  followers 
remained  with  the  Mennonites  and  continued  to 
knock  at  the  door  of  their  church  for  admission. 
With  a  purpose  to  further  this  interest  they  sent 
forth  "The  Last  Booke  of  John  Smyth,  called  the 
Retractation  of  His  Errors  and  the  Confirmation  of 
the  Truth."  At  the  close  of  it  were  added  "Propo- 
sitions and  Conclusions  Concerning  the  True  Chris- 
tian Religion,  Containing  a  Confession  of  Faith  of 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  55 

Certain  English  People  Living  at  Amsterdam." 
(The  above  was  discovered  in  1871  by  Dr.  Dexter, 
in  the  Library  of  York  Minster,  and  is  published  in 
full  between  pp.  117  and  118  in  Barclay,  Inner  Life 
of  the  Religious  Societies  of  the  Commonwealth, 
London,  1876.) 

Here,  then,  are  four  several  Confessions  of  Faith, 
two  by  the  party  of  Mr.  Smyth,  who  were  struggling 
for  a  place  among  the  Mennonites  of  Amsterdam, 
and  two  by  Helwys  and  his  nine  followers,  who  were 
struggling  to  maintain  a  separate  and  independent 
existence.  We  can  perhaps  find  out  what  was  the 
act  of  baptism  among  them  by  considering  these 
documents  in  their  historical  setting.  An  impor- 
tant item  of  that  historical  setting  is  the  fact  already 
referred  to  that  the  Mennonites,  with  whom  both  par-, 
ties  were  dealing,  have  never  at  any  time  or  place 
been  immersionists.  They  are  unanimous  in  that 
contention,  the  most  learned  authorities  as  well  as 
the  common  people.  S.  Muller,  formerly  one  of 
the  Professors  at  the  Mennonite  College  in  Amster- 
dam, and  author  of  many  learned  works,  says: 
"This  mode  of  baptizing  (sprinkling)  was  from  the 
days  of  Menno  the  only  usual  mode  amongst  them, 
and  it  is  still  amongst  us.  The  Waterlanders  nor  any 
other  of  the  various  parties  of  the  Netherland 
Doopsgezinden  j^T^^c^ice^  at  any  time  haptism  hy  im- 
mersion.^'' (Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  223.)  Sprinkling  was 
"the  only  usual  mode,"  though  pouring  was  some- 


56  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

times  employed;  immersion  was  never  resorted  to 
at  any  time.  Tlie  testimony  of  Prof.  Scheffer  has 
already  been  given.  He  asserts  without  qualifica- 
tion that  immersion  was  never  in  use  among  the 
Mennonites.      (Overzicht,  p.  28.) 

Another  important  item  is  that  the  baptism  of 
Smyth  and  his  followers  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Mennonites,  namely,  sprinkling  or  pouring.  A 
body  of  Mennonite  ministers  after  strict  examina- 
tion on  the  spot  declared  as  follows  on  that  point: 
"Therefore  first  of  all  we  ministers  have  according 
to  the  desire  of  our  brethren,  summoned  these  Eng- 
lish before  us,  and  again  most  perfectly  examined 
them  as  regards  the  doctrine  of  salvation  and  the 
government  of  the  church,  and  also  inquired  for  the 
■foundation  and  form,  of  their  l)aptis7n^  and  xoe  have 
not  found  that  there  teas  any  difference  at  all  neither 
in  the  one  nor  the  other  thing.''''  (Evans,  vol.  1,  p. 
212.) 

A  third  important  item  is  that  there  was  no 
immersion  practiced  anywhere  in  Holland  until  the 
year  1620,  one  year  after  the  rise  of  the  Collegiants 
at  Rhynsburg,  and  that  it  was  then  introduced  by 
John  Geesteranus,  who  was  the  first  of  the  Collegiants 
to  submit  to  it.      (Scheffer,  Overzicht,  p.  39.) 

The  oldest  confession  of  John  Smyth,  Art.  15, 
says:  "Baptism  is  the  external  sign  of  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  of  dying  and  of  being  made  alive,  and 
therefore  does  not  belong  to  infants,"     Evans,  vol. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  57 

1,  p.  254.  Cf.  the  Latin  original,  Sclieflfer,  pp. 
170-1. 

The  oldest  confession  of  Thomas  Helwys  and  liis 
church,  Art.  10,  says:  "Baptism  is  tlie  external 
sign  of  the  remission  of  sins,  of  dying  and  renova- 
tion of  life,  and  therefore  does  not  pertain  to  in- 
fants." (Scheffer,  p.  174,  where  the  Latin  original 
may  be  seen.) 

The  second  confession  of  Thomas  Helwys  and  his 
church,  Art.  14,  says:  "That  baptism,  or  ivashing 
ivitfi  watei\  is  the  outward  manifestation  of  dying 
unto  sin  and  walking  in  newness  of  life;  and  there- 
fore in  no  wise  appertaineth  to  infants."  (Crosby, 
vol.  2,  Appendix  I.) 

The  second  confession  of  John  Smyth,  Art.  70, 
says:  "That  the  outward  baptism  of  water  is  to  be 
administered  only  upon  such  penitent  and  faithful 
persons  as  are  (aforesaid),  and  not  upon  innocent  in- 
fants or  wicked  persons.  (Matt,  iii.,  2,  3,  com- 
pared with  Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20,  and  John  iv.,  1.)" 

Art.  71:  "That  in  baptism  to  the  penitent  person 
and  believer  there  is  presented  and  figured,  the  spir- 
itual baptism  of  Christ  (that  is)  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  fire;  the  baptism  into  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ;  even  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  wliich  he  shall  assuredly  be  made  partaker  of, 
if  he  continue  to  the  end.  Gal.  iii.,  14;  Matt,  iii., 
11;  1  Cor.  xii.,  13;  Rom.  vi.,  3,  6;  Col.  ii.,  10." 
(Barclay,  between  pp.  117  and  118.) 


58  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

None  of  these  confessions  prescribes  immersion. 
When  that  form  of  administering  the  ordinance  was 
once  restored  there  was  no  difficulty  in  making  it 
known  by  words  like  dip  and  plunge  and  immerse. 
These  words  do  not  occur  here  for  the  reason  that 
no  such  custom  was  then  contemplated.  The  article 
on  baptism  in  the  first  confession  of  Helwys  seems 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  same  article  in  the 
first  confession  of  Smyth.  The  article  on  baptism 
in  the  second  confession  of  Helwys  lays  emphasis 
on  the  idea  of  purification  and  resembles  in  that 
point  many  Reformed  or  Presbyterian  creeds  that 
were  at  the  time  in  common  use. 

The  two  articles  in  the  second  confession  of  John 
Smyth,  who  at  the  moment  when  it  was  produced 
was  trying  to  gain  admission  to  the  Mennonite  body, 
show  most  resemblance  to  the  Creed  of  Lubbert 
Gerrits  and  Hans  de  Ries,  that  was  subscribed  by 
Smyth  and  his  followers  while  they  were  waiting 
upon  the  convenience  of  the  Mennonites.  (Evans, 
vol.  1,  pp.  245-252;  consult  Arts.  29,  30.)  Of  the 
four  Confessions  cited  the  last  by  Smyth  appears  to 
contain  more  expressions  that  could  be  interpreted 
in  favor  of  immersion  than  either  of  the  others,  and 
yet  if  Smyth  or  his  people  had  declared  in  favor  of 
that  rite  they  could  never  have  expected  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  church  upon  which  their  hopes  were 
set. 

After  the  death  of  Smyth  his  party  continued  ta 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  59^ 

appeal  for  admission  to  the  Meniionite  community, 
a  favor  which  was  at  hist  bestowed  on  the  2l8t  of 
January,  1615,  without  repeating  the  haptism^  which 
they  had  previously  received,  it  having  been  declared 
to  be  identical  with  that  of  the  Mennonites. 

The  relations  between  the  Mennonites  of  Amster- 
dam and  the  Helwys  church,  after  the  latter  had 
returned  to  England,  were  particularly  intimate.  In 
1624  Elias  Tookey  and  his  party  of  fifteen  adherents 
who  had  been  excluded  from  the  church  of  John 
Murton  in  London  endeavored  to  unite  with  the 
Amsterdam  church.  The  points  of  difference  be- 
tween them  were  duly  discussed  (Evans,  vol.  2,  pp. 
21-24  and  pp.  32-40),  but  not  a  word  was  said  re- 
garding the  act  of  baptism,  for  the  reason  that  no 
differences  existed  on  that  score,  both  parties  being 
in  the  practice  of  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

By  the  year  1626  John  Murton  had  succeeded  in 
organizing  five  churches  of  his  persuasion  in  Eng- 
land, one  each  at  London,  Lincoln,  Sarum,  Coventry 
and  Tiverton.  (Evans,  vol.  2,  p.  26.)  These  were 
very  small  and  all  of  them  together  only  "counted 
a  number  in  England  of  undoubtedly  150  persons." 
(Evans,  vol.  2,  p.  25.)  Barclay,  .Inner  Life,  p.  95, 
committed  the  blunder  of  asserting  that  the  150 
belonged  to  Murton's  church  at  Newgate  and  that 
there  were  four  other  churches  besides  these.  The 
other  authorities  have  followed  him  industriously. 
(Dexter,  Congregationalism,  p.  323;  Scheffer,  De- 
Brownisten,  p.  155.) 


■60  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

For  some  reason  Murton's  associates  became 
solicitous  to  join  the  Mennonites  and  sent  two  com- 
missioners to  Holland  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
out  that  enterprise.  (Evans,  vol.  2,  pp.  24,  25.) 
These  commissioners  bore  a  letter  setting  forth  the 
items  of  difference  between  the  followers  of  Helwys 
and  the  Mennonites,  of  which  there  were  only  five, 
namely,  about  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  about  the  law- 
fulness of  an  oath,  about  the  necessity  of  celebrating 
the  Lord's  Supper  every  Sunday,  whether  the  ordi- 
nances should  be  administered  by  lay  members,  and 
whether  it  is  admissible  for  Christian  men  to  hold 
civil  office,  and  to  bear  the  sword.  (Evans,  vol.  2, 
pp.  26-30.)  In  this  letter  the  English  expressly 
assert  that  "these  are  all  the  differences  which  we 
think  to  exist."  (Evans,  vol.  2,  p.  30.)  There  was 
no  difference  whatever  regarding  the  act  of  baptism, 
since  both  parties  still  practiced  sprinkling  and 
pouring. 

After  the  decease  of  Helwys,  John  Murton  stood 
at  the  head  of  the  movement.  He  in  turn  passed 
away  in  1630.  At  any  rate  his  wife  Jane,  who  was 
a  daughter  of  Alexander  Hogdkin  (Scheffer,  De 
Brownisten,  p.  81),  then  went  back  to  Amsterdam  to 
live  with  her  father  and  mother,  these  being  still 
alive  and  members  of  theMennonite  church.  (Evans, 
vol.  2,  p.  50.)  On  the  26th  of  September,  1630,  she 
was  received  into  that  church  with  four  others,  who 
possibly  had  returned  with  her,  "because  they  were 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  61 

baptized  formerly  by  Mr.  Smyth."  (Evans,  vol.  1, 
p.  222.)  Such  an  incident  presupposes  closer  re- 
lations than  could  have  existed  had  there  been 
already  a  controversy  as  to  the  act  of  baptism  be- 
tween the  Mennonites  and  the  disciples  of  Helwys. 

Prof.  Scheffer  affirms  that  this  intimate  union  con- 
tinued until  the  year  164:1  when  Richard  Blunt  went 
to  Rhynsburg,  and  receiving  immersion  at  the  hands 
of  John  Batten,  returned  to  England  and  imparted  it 
to  the  members  of  his  church.  "By  that  act,"  he 
adds,  "the  bond  of  fellowship  with  the  Netherland 
Mennonites  was  first  broken  off,  because  from  that 
moment  forward  tlie  Mennonites  were  regarded  as 
unbaptized  people."  (De  Brownisten  te  Amster- 
dam, p.  156. ) 

After  surveying  these  facts  Dr.  Evans,  by  all 
means  the  best  equipped  of  English  Baptist  his- 
torians, is  much  staggered  regarding  the  point  in 
question.  He  cites  the  statement  of  the  editor 
of  Robinson's  works,  who  declares  that  "nothing 
appears  in  the  controversial  writings  of  Smyth 
and  Helwys  to  warrant  the  supposition  that  they 
regarded  immersion  as  the  proper  and  only  mode 
of  administering  the  ordinance,"  and  adds,  "in  this 
opinion  Dr.  Muller  fully  agrees.  But  was  it  so? 
We  cannot  pronounce  positively,  but  are  bound 
to  confess  that  the  probabilities  are  greatly  in  its 
favor."  (Evans,  vol.  2,  p.  52.)  On  another  page 
he  says:  "Upon  the  cause  of  the  deputation  to  Hoi- 


-62  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

land  (sending  of  Richard  Blunt)  we  have  commented 
already.  Most  will  now  see  that  the  practice  of  the 
Mennonite  brethren  (sprinkling)  was  common  in  this 
-country.  These  'new  men'  soon  cast  them  into  the 
-shade  and  their  practice  speedily  became  obsolete. 
Immersion  as  the  mode  of  baptism  became  the  rule 
with  botli  sections  of  the  Baptist  community." 
(Evans,  vol.  2,  p.  79.) 

It  will  now  be  appropriate  to  consider  certain  ob- 
jections that  have  been  urged  against  the  conclusion 
that  the  people  later  known  as  General  Baptists  in 
England  employed  only  sprinkling  or  pouring  for 
baptism  prior  to  the  year  1641. 

The  first  of  these  is  found  in  a  fabulous  statement 
under  the  pretended  date  of  March  21,  1606,  as  fol- 
lows: "This  niglit  at  midnight  Elder  John  Murton 
baptized  John  Smith,  vicar  of  Gainsborough  in  the 
river  Don.  It  was  so  dark  wee  were  obliged  to  liave 
torch-lights.  Elder  Brewster  prayed  and  Mr.  Smith 
made  a  good  confession.  Walked  to  Epworth  in  his 
cold  clothes,  but  received  no  harm.  The  distance 
was  over  two  miles.  All  our  friends  were  present. 
A  strong  wind,  but  faire  above-liead.  To  ye  triune 
■<Tod  be  all  ye  praise."     Dexter,  True  Story,  p.  66. 

This  fabrication  originated  among  the  General 
Baptists  of  Lincolnshire,  England,  and  purports  to 
be  a  transcript  from  the  "Ancient  Records"  of  the 
'Church  of  Christ,  meeting  at  Epworth,  Crowle  and 
^est  Butterwick.      No  sadder  humiliation  has  ever 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  63 

been  inflicted  upon  our  Baptist  name  and  cause. 
The  fact  that  it  could  be  put  forth  under  tlie  auspices 
of  Rev.  John  Clifford,  M.A,,LL.B.,  reflects  a  pain- 
ful light  upon  the  condition  of  studies  in  Baptist 
liistory  among  the  Baptists  of  England.  Copious 
extracts  from  it  appeared  first  in  the  General  Bap- 
tist Magazine,  London,  1879,  p.  327  and  p.  438,  of 
which  Mr.  Clifford  was  editor.  As  if  that' were  not 
sufficient  to  fill  up  the  cup  of  our  mortification,  a 
volume  was  subsequently  issued  to  set  it  forth  anew 
under  the  title  of  "The  English  Baptists,  Who  thej 
Are  and  What  they  have  Done.  Edited  by  John 
Clifford,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  London,  E.  Marlborough  & 
Co.,  1881." 

This  fable  has  been  sufficiently  exposed  by  Dr. 
H.  M.  Dexter,  (True  Story  of  John  Smyth  the  Se- 
Baptist,  Boston,  1881,  pp.  63-86,)  and  the  justice 
of  his  representations  is  acknowledged  by  scholars 
everywhere.  Brof.  Scheft'er  declares,  (Overzicht, 
p.  42,  note  3,)  that  "he  has  demonstrated  beyond 
refutation  that  the  so-called  'Ancient  Records'  are 
notliing  else  than  an  unworthy  instance  of  decep- 
tion." It  would  carry  us  too  far  to  enter  into  all 
the  details  of  this  fraud,  and  we  must  be  content  in 
this  place  merely  to  show  that  its  authority  cannot 
stand  against  the  well  established  authority  of  con- 
temporary history. 

The  assertion  that  John  Murton  baptized  John 
Smyth,  vicar  of  Gainsborough,  in  the  river  Don  on 


64  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

the  24111  of  March,  1606,  is  contradicted  by  the  tes- 
timony of  John  Smyth  himself.  In  his  work  en- 
titled. Parables,  Censures,  Observations,  Aperteyn- 
ing,  etc.,  printed  in  1609,  and  written  certainly  after 
March  21,  1606,  Mr.  Smyth  denounces  the  Anabap- 
tists in  a  way  to  demonstrate  that  he  could  not  yet 
have  been  one  of  them.  On  pp.  13  and  11  he  says: 
"I  demaund  of  you:  do  you  think  that  God  accepteth 
the  prayers  and  Religious  Exercises  of  the  Papists, 
the  Arrians,  the  AnoJjaptints^  the  Familists  or  any 
other  heretiques  or  Antichristians  ?  if  not  what  is  the 
true  cause  that  God  accepteth  them  not  '.  is  it  not 
that  there  is  not  that  true  communion  of  the  Saynts 
there,  the  true  Spouse  of  Christ,  the  Spiritual  Tem- 
ple where  God  hath  provided  his  presence?"  If 
Smyth  had  joined  tlie  Anabaptist  party  in  1606,  he 
could  not  have  classed  them  with  "Papists,  Arrians, 
Familists  and  otlier  heretiques  or  Antichristians"  in 
a  work  written  more  than  a  year  later. 

Furthermore  this  deception  can  not  outweigh  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Smyth  himself  when  he  confesses 
that  he  baptized  himself.  It  has  been  shown  above 
that  this  step  was  performed  in  October,  1608,  and 
that  before  the  month  of  March,  1609,  he  had  re- 
pented the  act  and  was  knocking  at  the  door  of  tlie 
Mennonite  Church  in  Amsterdam  for  admission. 
In  the  archives  of  that  church  is  still  preserved  a 
confession  of  sorrow  for  their  disorderly  conduct  in 
baptizing  themselves,  which  is  composed  in  the  Latin 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  65 

language,  in.  the  handwriting  of  Smyth  (Sclieffer, 
De  Browiiisteii,  p.  128,  note  2),  and  subscribed  by 
himself  and  thirty-one  of  his  followers.  Tliis  is 
found  printed  somewhat  incorrectly  in  Evans,  vol. 
1,  pp.  2-14-5,  and  an  English  translation  is  also 
given,  Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  209.  A  correct  copy  is 
published  by  Scheft'er,  De  Brownisten  te  Amster- 
dam, p.  128.  Dr.  Dexter  has  inserted  it  in  a  note 
at  the  foot  of  page  31  of  the  True  Story  of  John 
Smyth,  including  one  of  the  blunders  made  by 
Evans.  It  may  be  translated  as  follows:  "Names 
of  the  English  people  who  acknowledge  this  their 
error  and  repent  of  the  same,  namely,  that  tJiey  un- 
dertooh  to  haptize  themselves  contrary  to  the  order 
established  by  Christ,  and  who  now  desire  to  unite 
with  this  true  Church  of  Christ  with  all  possible  ex- 
pedition." Here  Mr.  Smyth  concedes  that  he  bap- 
tized himself. 

In  the  Character  of  the  Beast,  printed  in  1609,  p. 
58,  he  also  concedes  this  point:  "If  all  the  com- 
mandments of  God  must  be  obeyed,  then  this  of 
baptism,  and  this  warrant  is  sufficient  for  assuming 
baptism.  Now,  for  hajptizing  a  man''s  self  there  is 
as  good  warrant  as  for  a  ')nan\s  churching  himself^ 
for  two  men  singly  are  no  church,  jointly  they  are  a 
church,  and  they  both  of  them  put  a  church  upon 
themselves;  for  as  both  these  persons  unchurched, 
yet  have  power  to  assume  the  church,  each  of  them 
for  himself  and   others  in   communion,    so    each  of 

5 


66  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

them  unbaptized  hath  power  to  assume  hajytism  for 
himself  with  others  in  communion."  (Hanburv, 
Historical  Memorials  Relating  to  the  Independents, 
London,  1839,  vol.  1,  p.  267,  note.) 

Again,  in  the  Last  Booke  of  John  Smyth  as  print- 
ed in  Barclay's  Inner  Life  of  the  Religious  Societies 
of  the  Commonwealth,  as  an  appendix  to  chapter  YI. 
the  following  statements  are  found  on  page  Y.  : 
"Thirdly,  Master  Helwys  said  that  although  there 
be  churches  already  established,  ministers  ordained 
and  sacraments  administered  orderly,  yet  men  are 
not  bound  to  join  those  former  churches,  but  may, 
being  as  yet  unbaptized,  haptize  themselves  (as  we 
did)  and  proceed  to  build  churches  of  themselves. 

Only   this   is   it   which  I  held,  that  seeing 

there  was  no  church  to  whom  we  could  join  with  a 
good  conscience  to  have  baptism  from  them,  there- 
fore we  might  haptize  ourselves. ' ' 

In  view  of  these  three  confessions  by  Mr.  Smyth 
that  he  baptized  himself  it  is  vain  to  appeal  to  the 
fraud  that  has  been  foisted  upon  our  Denomination 
by  the  English  General  Baptists.  This  is  tlie  first 
instance  in  our  history  where  resort  has  been  had  to 
such  unworthy  means  to  support  our  cause.  Let  us 
trust  in  God  that  it  shall  also  be  the  last. 

The  Mennonite  ministers  whose  church  he  was 
trying  to  join  also  admit  that  Mr.  Smyth  baptized 
himself.  They  desired  their  brethren  with  whom 
they  corresponded  on  the  subject  of  receiving  Smyth 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  67 

and  his  followers:  "to  take  into  consideration  and 
distinguish  the  baptism  of  those  that  are  baptized  by 
their  minister  himself,  for  we  ourselves  do  distin- 
guish the  act  of  baptizing  hy  which  he  has  baptized 
himself-,  this  is  an  affair  quite  different."  (Evans, 
vol.  1,  p.  213). 

If  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  friends  both  unite  in  the  ad- 
mission that  he  baptized  himself  the  case  will  become 
only  so  much  stronger  when  his  opponents  join  their 
testimony  to  the  volume  of  proof.  Witnesses  from 
that  side  are  too  numerous  and  circumstantial  to  be 
cited  in  this  place,  and  it  must  suftice  to  refer  to 
such  men  as  John  Robinson  who  was  present  in 
Amsterdam  when  the  occurrence  took  place.  Relig- 
ious Communion,  1614,  Ashton's  ed.,  p.  168; 
Henry  Ainsworth,  also  present,  in  his  Defence  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  Worship,  etc.,  1609,  p.  69  and 
p.  82;  R.  Clyfton,  also  present,  in  his  Flea  for  In- 
fants, 1610,  Answer  to  Epistle,  and  divers  other 
writers. 

The  second  objection  is  drawn  from  the  case  of  Mr, 
Leonard  Busher,  who  in  his  work  entitled  Religion's 
Peace  or  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience,  published 
by  the  Hanserd  Knollys  Society,  Tracts  on  Liberty  of 
Conscience,  London,  1846,  p.  59,  says:  "And  such 
as  shall  willingly  and  gladly  receive  it  (the  Word), 
He  hath  commanded  to  be  baptized  in  the  water, 
that  is  dipped  for  dead  in  the  water."  It  is  some- 
times  too    confidently    assumed    that    this   passage 


68  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

proves  Mr.  Buslier  to  have  been  an  immersionist 
in  practice  as  well  as  in  principle,  but  we  know 
too  little  regarding  him  to  venture  distinct  as- 
sertions on  that  point.  He  was  a  citizen  of  Lon- 
don, as  appears  from  the  title  of  his  book,  and 
'A  faithful  and  loving  subject  of  the  king  of  England 
(Religion's  Peace,  p.  26),  whose  ancestors  may  have 
come  from  Holland  (Evans,  vol.  1,  p.  229,  jiote) 
and  who  himself  had  connections  there.  He  was  also 
an  Anabaptist,  and,  with  his  followers,  resided  in 
Amsterdam.  Dr.  Dexter  (Congregationalism  as 
Seen  in  its  Literature,  New  York,  1880,  p.  322,  note 
117)  says:  "Matthew  Saunders  and  Cuthbert  Hut- 
ton,  in  their  letter  to  Johnson's  church  (Lawne's 
Profane  Schisme,  etc.,  p.  56),  under  date  of  8  July, 
1611,  speak  of  three  kinds  of  English  Anabaptists 
then  in  Amsterdam,  viz:  'Master  Smyth,  an  Ana- 
baptist of  one  sort,  and  Master  Helwise  of  another, 
and  Master  Busher  of  another.'  "  He  also  was  re- 
siding in  the  Netherlands  while  engaged  in  writing 
his  book,  which  it  will  be  remembered  was  first  pub- 
lished in  1614.  On  page  77  of  that  work  he  says: 
"I  read  that  in  the  Netherlands  above  a  hundred 
thousand  persons  have  been  put  to  death  for  relig- 
ion. But  now,  praised  be  God,  we  have  no  such 
woful  tidings  preached  among  us  (in  Holland).  The 
Lord  work  as  much  in  our  land  (England)  I  beseech 
him!  that  so  you  may  no  longer  burn  and  banish  the 
servants  of  Christ."     He  was  glad  to  lead  a  peace- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  69 

able  and  quiet  life  in  the  Low  countries,  but  he  de- 
plored the  fact  that  his  majesty's  faithful  subjects 
could  not  do  this  even  in  their  own  nation  (pp. 
79-80). 

Was  the  first  edition  of  his  book  in  1614  pub- 
lished at  London  or  at  Amsterdam?  Hitherto  it  has 
been  impossible  to  discover  an  edition  earlier  than 
that  of  1646,  and  hence  this  question  can  not  be  an- 
swered. Did  he  ever  return  from  Holland  to  Eng- 
land? That  inquiry  must  also  be  left  unsolved.  If 
he  failed  to  return  to  England  at  all  he  does  not  come 
within  the  range  of  the  present  inquiry,  which  refers 
only  to  that  country.  The  act  of  baptism  observed  by 
him  would  in  that  case  become  a  question  for  Dutch 
archaeologists.  But  either  Dutch  or  English  archae- 
ologists, founding  on  the  mere  fact  that  he  was  an 
immersionist  in  principle,  must  jump  a  long  dis- 
tance to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  also  an  immer- 
sionist in  practice.  It  is  clear  that  he  had  small  re- 
spect for  the  labors  of  Helwys  at  Newgate  in  Lon- 
don, not  being  willing  to  recognize  Helwys'  church 
as  a  "right  visible  congregation"  (Religion's  Peace, 
p.  25),  but  that  opposition  might  have  resulted,  not 
from  the  circumstance  that  they  practiced  sprinkling 
while  he  practiced  immersion,  but  possibly  because 
they  were  Arminians  and  he  was  a  Calvin ist.  In  brief 
words,  Mr.  Busher  is  a  shadowy  figure,  and  it  is  en- 
tirely uncertain  whether  he  spent  his  last  years  in 
England  or  Holland.      Therefore,  we  are  not  enti- 


70  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

tied,  for  the  present  at  least,  to  establish  any  definite 
conclusions  regarding  liirn  or  his  people,  except  that 
if  he  had  practiced  immersion  at  Amsterdam  in  1611 
we  should  have  been  likely  to  hear  a  good  deal  more 
about  him  than  has  been  brought  to  light  hitherto. 

I  have  already  shown  in  Chapter  III.  that  none  of 
the  Anabaptists  of  Holland  were  in  the  practice  of 
immersion  prior  to  the  year  1620  at  which  time  the 
rite  was  introduced  again  into  that  country  by  John 
Geesteranus  at  Rhynsburg.  The  most  that  can  be 
safely  claimed  for  Mr.  Busher  is  that  he  was  an  ad- 
vance herald  of  genuine  Baptist  principles  in  Hol- 
land, that  were  shortly  to  be  reduced  to  practice  in 
England.  His  Calvinistic  views  would  in  due  time 
naturally  commend  his  views  regarding  immersion 
to  the  favorable  attention  of  the  Jessey  church,  when 
they  in  their  turn  should  set  about  considering  that 
subject. 

The  last  objection  is  drawn  singularly  enough 
from  Dr.  Featley's  Dippers  Dipt,  which  stands 
among  the  books  of  the  period  that  are  most  distinct 
in  asserting  that  immersion  was  a  splinter  new  prac- 
tice in  England  in  the  year  1644,  when  it  first  came 
from  the  press.  The  argument  is  given  on  page  44 1  of 
the  History  of  the  Baptists  by  Dr.  Armitage,  New 
York,  1887,  and  is  mended  and  improved  on  p.  458. 
A  passage  is  there  chosen  from  page  3  of  the  Epistle 
Dedicatory  where  Featley  is  describing  the  practices 
of  the  Anabaptists  at  the  time  when  he  wrote,  namely 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  71 

in  1644,  the  book  having  issued  from  the  press  on 
the  10th  of  January  of  that  year.  (Crosby,  1,  304.) 
He  relates  as  follows:  "They  flock  in  great  mul- 
titudes to  their  Jordans  and  both  sexes  enter  into 

the  Rivers  and  are  dipt  after  their  manner 

And  as  they  defile  our  Rivers  with  their  impure 
washings  and  our  pulpits  with  their  false  Proph- 
ecies and  Plianaticall  Enthusiasmes,  so  the  press- 
es sweat  and  groane  under  the  load  of  their  blas- 
phemies." Then  passing  over  nearly  three  pages 
and  coming  to  a  connection  where  nothing  is  said 
about   immersion   he  selects  the  following   passage 

"This    venomous   Serpent  (vere   Solifuga) 

is  the  Anabaptist  who  in  these  later  times  first 
showed  his  shining  head  and  speckled  skin  and 
thrust  out  his  sting  near  the  place  of  my  resi- 
dence, for  more  than  twenty  years."  Dr.  Feat- 
ley  in  the  last  sentence  undertakes  to  declare  that 
the  Anabaptists  who  were  at  that  period  in  the  prac- 
tice of  sprinkling  had  showed  themselves  near  the 
place  of  his  residence  more  than  twenty  years  pre- 
viously, while  in  the  first  two  sentences  he  describes 
the  practice  that  they  had  only  recently  introduced, 
^^since  the  waters  were  troubled''''  and  the  nation  had 
been  thrown  into  confusion.  The  argument  of  Dr. 
Armitage  to  the  effect  that  the  Anabaptists,  according 
to  Dr.  Featley,  had  been  engaged  in  dipping  for  more 
than  twenty  years  near  the  place  of  his  residence  is 
therefore  inadmissible.      The  authority  to  which  he 


72  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

refers  intends  to  convey  no  such  impression.  On  the 
contrary,  in  another  place,  Preface  to  tlie  Reader 
(near  tlie  close),  he  gives  a  distinct  note  of  time  indi- 
cating the  exact  period  at  which  dipping  commenced. 
'  'But  of  late, "  he  says, '  '■si7ice  the  unhaj)2>y  distractions 
which  our  sins  have  hrought  upon  us,  the  Temporall 
Sword  heing  other  ways  employed  and  the  Spiritucdl 
lodged  up  fast  in  the  Scahhard,  this  sect  among  others 
hath  so  far  presumed  upon  the  patience  of  the  State 
that  it  hath  held  weekly  Conventicles,  rebaptized 
hundreds  of  men  and  women  together  in  the  twilight, 
in  Rivelets  and  some  arms  of  the  Thames  and  Else- 
where, dipping  them  over  head  and  ears."  The  un- 
happy distractions  here  mentioned  began  in  Eng- 
land in  1640.  It  was  only  after  that  time  that 
the  "Temporall  Sword  was  other  ways  employed 
and  the  Spirituall  was  locked  up  fast  in  the  Scab- 
bard." When  Dr.  Arraitage  cites  this  last  passage 
in  page  458  of  his  History,  the  note  of  time  is 
omitted  and  he.  charges  that  Featley  "contradicts 
himself  several  times."  The  facts  will  not  sustain 
this  charge;  Dr.  Featley  does  not  contradict  him- 
self. Everything  that  he  utters  anywhere  in  his 
volume  conforms  strictly  with  the  statement  made, 
Dippers  Dipt,  London,  1644,  p.  187,  where  he  is 
discussing  the  Fortieth  Article  of  the  Baptist  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  that  prescribes  "dipping  or  plung- 
ing as  the  way  and  manner  of  administering  the 
ordinance  of  baptism."     In  that  place  he  declares: 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  73 

•"This  Article  is  wholly  sowsed  with  the  new  leaven 
of  Anabaptisme.  1  saj  the  new  leaven^  for  it  can 
not  he  proved  that  any  of  the  ancient  Anahaptists 

maintained  any  s^ich  position It  is  not  es- 

sentiall  to  Baptisme,  neither  doe  the  texts  in  the 
margent  conclude  any  such  thing.  It  is  true  John 
baptized  Christ  in  the  River,  but  the  Text  saith  not 
that  either  the  Eunuch  or  Christ  himself,  or  any 
baptized  by  John  or  his  Disciples,  or  any  of  Christ's 
Disciples  were  dipped,  plunged  or  dowsed  over  head 
and  ears,  as  this  Article  implyeth  and  our  Anabap- 
tists noio  practice." 

Once  more;  Dr.  Featley  resided  in  Southwark, 
just  south  of  the  Thames,  in  London,  where  he  had 
two  livings,  one  the  rectory  of  Lambeth  and  the 
other  of  Acton.  (Neal,  History  of  the  Puritans,  Bos- 
ton, 1817,  vol.  3,  p.  320. )  But  the  Jessey  Church 
was  also  situated  in  Southwark,  and  it  was  there  that 
Featley  held  the  famous  debate  with  the  Anabap- 
tists in  1642  which  became  the  foundation  of  the 
work  known  as  the  Dippers  Dipt.  The  Jessey  Church 
was  therefore  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Doctor's 
residence,  and  some  of  them  may  have  known  him 
very  well.  Mr.  Kiffin,  one  of  his  opponents  in  the 
debate,  had  been  a  member  of  the  Jessey  Church 
down  to  the  year  1641,  at  which  time  he  joined  the 
Baptists.  (Gould,  Open  Communion  and  the  Baptists 
of  Norwich,  Introduction,  p.  cxxviii. ) 

The  statement  of   the   Jessey   Church   Records  is 


74  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

positive  and  unqualified — "none  having  then  so 
practiced  in  Enghmd  to  professed  believers."  It 
embraces  the  whole  of  England  in  general,  and  in 
particular  every  foot  of  the  Borough  of  Southwark, 
where  Dr.  Featley  and  they  lived  as  neighbors  to- 
gether and  seems  to  exclude  the  notion  that  anybody 
could  have  been  practicing  immersion  in  the  Borough 
for  more  than  twenty  years.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
declaration  by  Featley  is  not  positive  and  uncondi- 
tional: it  is  a  mere  inference  drawn  by  putting  to- 
gether certain  statements  that  he  has  made  in  dif- 
ferent portions  of  his  volume. 

The  Borough  in  those  days  may  have  contained  as 
many  as  seven  or  ten  thousand  inhabitants.  If  any- 
body had  been  immersing  at  Lambeth,  near  Dr. 
Featley's  residence,  for  more  than  twenty  years 
there  is  scarcely  one  chance-  in  a  million  that  the 
men  of  the  Jessey  Church  would  not  have  become 
aware  of  it.  And  there  is  scarcely  one  chance  in 
ten  millions  that  Dr.  Featley,  who  was  an  outsider, 
should  have  heard  of  these  immersions,  while  the 
men  of  the  Jessey  Church  remained  in  ignorance  of 
them. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations  I  am  not  able 
to  attach  any  importance  to  the  claim  that  Dr. 
Featley  teaches  that  the  Anabaptists  had  been  im- 
mersing near  the  place  of  his  residence  for  more 
than  twenty  years.  In  fact  I  cannot  perceive  that 
he  has  made   such  an  assertion:    I  prefer  to  stand 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  75- 

by  the  positive  unconditional  assertion  of  his  imme- 
diate neighbors  in  the  Borough  of  Southwark  when, 
in  1640,  they  assert — "none  having  then  so  prac- 
ticed in  England  to  professed  believers." 

The  facts  above  set  forth  are  all  in  harmony  with 
the  representations  contained  in  the  Records  of  a 
Church  of  Christ,  meeting  in  Broadmead,  Bristol, 
1640-1687,  Hanserd  Knollys  Society,  London,  1847. 
These  Records  were  composed  by  Mr.  Edward  Terrill, 
an  honored  Ruling  Elder,  who  was  born  in  1634  or 
1635  (Records,  p.  63,  note)  and  joined  the  church  in 
1658  (Records,  p.  57).  He  began  the  labor  of  writ- 
ing down  the  Records  in  the  year  1672  (Underhill's 
Introduction  to  Records,  p.  xciv;  cf.  Records,  p.  47). 
As  he  was  only  five  or  six  years  of  age  in  1640,  when 
the  events  he  describes  began  to  take  place,  he  was 
not  an  eyewitness  of  them.  It  was  thirty-two  years 
after  the  earliest  of  them  occurred  before  he  set  pen 
to  paper.  Nevertheless  his  account  may  be  accepted 
as,  perhaps,  substantially  accurate. 

He  says  "that  in  the  year  of  our  forever  blessed 
Redeemer,  the  Lord  Jesus  (1640),  one  thousand  six 
hundred  and  forty,  those  five  persons,  namely  Good- 
man Atkins  of  Stapleton,  Goodman  Cole,  a  butcher 
of  Lawford's  Gate,  Richard  Moone,  a  farrier  in  Wine 
Street,  and  Mr.  Bacon,  a  young  minister,  with  Mrs. 
Hazzard,  at  Mrs.  Hazzard's  house  at  the  upper  end 
of  Broad  Street,  in  Bristol,  they  met  together  and 
came  to  a  holy  resolution  to  separate  from  the  wor- 


■76  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

.ship  of  the  world  and  times  they  lived  in 

"Shortly  after  this  on  a  time  called  Easter,  be- 
cause Mr.  Hazzard  could  not  in  conscience  give  the 
Sacrament  to  the  people  of  the  parish,  he  went  out 
-of  town  and  took  that  season  to  visit  his  kindred  at 
Lyme.  And  at  that  juncture  of  time  the  providence 
of  God  brought  to  this  city  one  Mr.  Canne,  a  baptized 
man.  It  was  that  Mr.  Canne  that  made  notes  and 
references  upon  the  Bible.  He  was  a  man  very 
eminent  in  his  day  for  godliness  and  for  reformation 
in  religion,  having  great  understanding  in  the  way  of 
the  Lord."     (Broadmead  Records,  pp.  17,18.) 

"And  on  the  Lord's  day  following  he  preached  at 
a  place  called  Westerleigh,  about  seven  miles  from 
this  city;  and  many  of  the  professors  from  hence 
went  thither  to  hear  him,  with  Mrs.  Hazzard,  willing 
to  enjoy  such  a  light  as  long  as  they  could;  where 
he  had  liberty  to  preach  in  the  public  place  called  a 
church  in  the  morning,  but  in  the  afternoon  could 
not  have  entrance.  The  obstruction  was  by  a  very 
godly,  great  woman  that  dwelt  in  that  place,  who 
was  somewhat  severe  in  the  profession  of  what  she 
knew,  liearing  that  he  was  a  baptized  man,  by  them 
called  an  anabaptist,  wliich  was  to  some  sufficient 
cause  of  prejudice;  because  the  truth  of  believer's 
baptism  had  been  for  a  long  time  buried,  yea  for  a 
long  time  by  popish  inventions,  and  their  sprinkling 
brought  in  the  room  thereof. ''  (Broadmead  Records, 
p.  19.) 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  IT 

Rev.  Charles  Stovel  has  published  an  excellent 
biography  of  Mr.  Canne  in  the  volume  entitled,  A 
Necessity  of  Separation  from  the  Church  of  England 
Proved  by  the  Nonconformists  Principles.  By  John 
Canne,  Pastor  of  the  Ancient  English  Church  in 
Amsterdam.  Hanserd  Knollys  Society,  London, 
1849.  This  learned  author  is  an  adept  in  Puritan 
chronology  as  the  same  is  employed  by  Mr.  Terrill 
in  the  Broadmead  Records.  Referring  to  the  pas- 
sages I  have  given  above,  Mr.  Stovel  says:  "When 
introduced  to  us  in  the  Broadmead  Records  at 
Easter,  after  1640,  that  is  April  the  25th,  1641,  he 
[Mr.  Canne]  appears  to  have  been  received  as  a  man 

who  was  well  known,  and  eminently  respected 

When  he  could  gain  access  to  the  public  place  of 
worship  he  used  it;  and  when  driven  out  because  he 
was  'a  baptist' — 'a  baptized  man' — he  retired  to  the 
Green, — meeting  the  opponents  by  reasonings  not 
to  be  refuted,  and,  everywhere,  speaking  with  fer- 
vor and  effect  to  an  awakened  empire."  (Introduc- 
tory Notice,  pp.  x,xi.)  In  a  chronological  arrange- 
ment of  his  life  (Introductory  Notice,  p.  xxviii)  Mr. 
Stovel  says:  "1641,  Canne  is  at  Bristol,  April  25." 
This  would  agree  to  a  nicety  with  the  fact  tiiat  Blunt 
had  begun  the  practice  of  immersion  in  Southwark, 
London,  early  in  the  year  1641,  after  his  return  from 
Holland,  whither  he  had  gone  to  obtain  it  in  1640. 
Mr.  Canne,  who  was  well  acquainted  in  Southwark, 
appears  to    have  submitted  to  the    ordinance  very 


78  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

promptly  in  16il,  and  was  in  time  to  reach  Bristol 
by  the  25th  of  April,  16il. 

In  the  year  164:3  are  found  traces  of  immersed 
believers  in  Bristol  (Records,  pp.' 30, 31),  and  in  1652 
there  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  church  ( Pithay) 
of  which  all  the  members  were  immersed  (Rec- 
ords, p.  41);  and  in  the  year  1653  some  baptisms 
are  mentioned  as  administered  in  a  river  (Records, 
p.  42).  The  following  quotation  from  the  Records, 
p.  92,  will  show  that  at  the  date  mentioned  there 
was  a  regular  place  in  Frome  River  for  the  rite  of 
immersion:  "These  ten  men  and  four  women  were 
all  fourteen  baptized  together  one  after  another,  the 
sixth  day  of  the  first  month  1666  [1667],  in  the 
evening,  at  Baptist  Mills,  in  the  river  by  Mr.  Thomas, 
minister."  It  will  be  observed  that  the  title  "Baptist 
Mills"  is  first  employed  in  the  Records  twenty-five 
years  after  the  introduction  of  immersion  into  Eng- 
land in  1641. 

Prof.  Masson,  in  his  Life  and  Times  of  Milton, 
London,  1873,  vol.  3,  p.  104,  says  that  "Helwys'  folk 
differed  from  the  Independents  not  only  on  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism  and  dipping,  but  also  on  the 
power  of  the  magistrate.*'  It  is  true  that  Helwys 
and  his  people  differed  from  the  Independents  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism,  but  as  was  shown  above, 
they  did  not  differ  on  the  subject  of  dipping.  On 
the  contrary,  they  were  in  accord  with  the  Independ- 
-ents  in  practicing  sprinkling  and  pouring  for  bap- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  79 

tism.  The  work  of  Massori  was  issued  tliree  years 
before  that  of  Barclay  on  the  Inner  Life  of  the  Re- 
ligious Societies  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  marks 
a  distinct  advance  in  Baptist  history.  Masson  had 
great  learning,  but  he  had  given  no  special  attention 
to  this  department,  and  his  views  were  entirely  those 
of  traditional  writers  on  the  subject.  They  do  not 
require  to  be  considered  in  this  place.  His  blunder 
is  due  to  nothing  else  than  the  circumstance  that  he 
had  not  become  aware  of  the  progress  that  has  been 
made  in  recent  years  in  this  line  of  research. 


80  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


VI. 

GENUINE   ANCIENT    RECORDS. 

AN  instrument  of  writing  designated  as  the  Kiffin 
manuscript  has  played  a  large  role  in  our  Bap- 
tist history.  The  name  of  the  author  is  entirely  un- 
known. It  has  been  traditionally  ascribed  to  Wm. 
Kiffin,  who  was  a  prominent  character  among  Eng- 
lish Baptists,  and  left  behind  a  manuscript  account 
of  his  life,  selections  from  which  have  been  pub- 
lished by  Ivimey,  (History  of  the  English  Baptists, 
London,  1814,  vol.  2,  pp.  297-322).  No  writer  on 
Baptist  history  has  ever  rejected  the  authority  of  this 
manuscript,  and  down  to  a  comparatively  recent 
period  none  of  its  statements  were  subjected  to 
criticism. 

I  recently  und<3rtook  some  researches  in  this 
field  which  were  rewarded  by  finding  a  still  earlier 
manuscript  on  the  same  subject.  It  was  rescued  by 
Rev.  George  Crould  from  amongst  the  manuscripts 
of  Mr.  H.  Jessey,  who  in  1637  became  pastor  of  the 
Ancient  Independent  Church  that  had  been  founded 
at  London  in  1616  by  Mr.  Henry  Jacobs,  and  bears 
the  following  title:  "The  Records  of  an  Ancient 
Congregation  of  Dissenters,  from  wch  many  of  ye 
Independent  and  Baptist  Churches  in  London  took 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


81 


their  first  rise."  (Gould,  Open  Communion  and  the 
Baptists  of  Norwich,  Introduction,  pp.  cxxi  and 
cxxii.)  These  singularly  valuable  records,  which 
must  be  still  in  existence  since  Gould  had  them  in 
his  possession  in  1860  (Open  Communion,  Intro- 
duction, p.  cxxiii),  ought  by  all  means  to  be  published 
in  faC'simile,  and  whoever  accomplishes  that  task 
will  render  an  important  service  to  Baptist  history. 
Mr.  Gould  prints  only  "certain  entries"  found  in 
them  (Introduction,  p.  cxxii),  and  these  do  not  quite 
cover  all  the  ground  occupied  by  the  so-called  Kiffin 
manuscript.  To  facilitate  comparison  both  docu- 
ments will  be  found  printed  in  parallel  columns  be- 
low, the  one  under  the  title  of  Jessey  Church  Records 
and  the  other  as  the  so-called  KiiEn  manuscript. 


JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        SO-CALLED  KIFFIN  MANUSCRIPT. 

There  was  a  congregation  of  Protest- 
ant Dissenters  of  the  independant  Per- 
suasion in  London,  gathered  in  the 
year  1616,  whereof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob 
was  the  first  pastor;  and  after  him  suc- 
ceeded Mr.  John  Lathorp,  who  was 
their  minister  at  this  time.  In  this 
society  several  persons  finding  that  the 
congregations  kept  not  to  their  first 
principles  of  separation,  and  being  also 
convinced  that  (1)  baptism  was  not  to 
be  administered  to  infants,  but  such 
only  as  professed  faith  in  Christ,  de- 
sired that  they  miglit  be  dismissed  from 
that  communion,  and  allowed  to  form 
a  distinct  congregation  in  such  order  as 
was  most  agreeable  to  their  own  Senti- 
ments. 

The  church  considering  that  they 
were  now  grown  very  numerous,  and  so 
more  than  could  in  these  times  of  per- 
secution conveniently  meet  together, 
and  believing  also  tliat  those  persons 
acted  from  a  principle  of  conscience, 
and  notobstinacy,  agreed  to  allow  them 
the  liberty  they 'desired,  and  that  they 


1633.  There  haveing  been  much  dis- 
cussing. These  denying  Truth  of  ye 
Parish  Churches,  and  ye  Church  being 
now  become  so  large  yt  it  might  be 
prejudicial.  These  following  desired 
dismission,  that  they  might  become  an 
Entire  Church,  and  (2)  further  ye  Com- 
munion of  those  Churches  in  Order 
amongst  themselves,  wch  at  last  was 
granted  to  them,  and  performed  Sept. 
12,  1683,  viz. 

Henry  Parker  &  wife.     Jo.  Milburn. 
Widd.  Fearne.  Arnold. 

[Green]  Hatmaker.         Mr.  Wilson. 
Mark  Luker.  Tho.  Allen. 

Mary  Milburn. 

To  These  .Joyned  Rich.  Blunt,  Tho. 
Hubert,  Rich.  Tredwell,  and  his  Wife 


82 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


Kath.,  John  Triiuber,  Wm.  Jennings 
and   Sam   Eaton,  Mary   Green  way,  (3) 
Mr.  Eaton  wth  some  others  receiving  a 
further  Baptism. 
Others  Joyned  to  them. 

1638.  These  also  being  of  ye  same 
Judgment  wth  Sam  Eaton,  and  desir- 
ing to  depart  and  not  be  censured,  our 
intrest  in  them  was  remitted,  wth 
Prayer  made  in  their  behalf,  June  8, 
1638.  They  haveiug  tirst  forsaken  Us, 
and  .Toyned  wth  Mr.  Spilsbury,  viz. 
Mr.  Peti  Ferrer.  Wm.  Batty. 
Hen.  Pen.  Mrs.  Allen  (died  163'.>). 

Tho.  Wilson.  Mr.  Norwood. 

Gould  Open  Communion  and  the 
Baptists  of  Norwich,  Intro,  p.  cxxii. 

1640.  3d  Mo  [May].  The  Church 
[whereof  Mr.  Jacob  and  Mr.  John  La- 
thorp  had  been  Pastors],  became  two 
by  mutual  consent,  ju-^t  half  being  with 
Mr.P.Barebone,  and  ye  other  halfe  wth 
Mr.  H.  Jessey.  (8)  Mr.  Richd  Blunt 
•wth  him,  being  convinced  of  Baptism, 
yt  also  it  ought  to  be  by  diping  ye 
Body  into  ye  Water,  resembling  Burial 
and  riseing  again,  Col.  II.,  12;  Rom. 
VI.,  4:  had  sober  Conferance  about  it 
in  ye  Church,  and  and  then  wth  some 
of  the  forenamed,  who  also  were  so  con- 
vinced: And  after  Prayer  and  Confer- 
ance about  their  so  enjoying  it,  none 
having  then  so  practiced  in  England 
to  professed  Believers,  and  hearing 
that  some  in  the  Nether  Lands  had  so 
practiced,  they  agreed  and  sent  over 
Mr.  Rich'd  Blunt  (who  understood 
Dutch)  wth  Letters  of  Comendation, 
who  was  kindly  accepted  there,  and 
Returned  wth  Letters  from  them,  Jo. 
Batten  a  Teacher  there,  and  from  that 
Church  to  such  as  sent  him. 

1641.  They  proceed  on  therein,  viz. 
Those  persons  yt  ware  perswaded  Bap- 
tism should  be  by  dipping  ye  Body, had 
mett  in  (9)  two  Companies,  and  did  in- 
tend so  to  meet  after  this:  all  these 
agreed  to  proceed  alike  togeather  :  and 
then  Manifesting  (not  by  any  formal 
Words^  a  Covenant  (wch  Word  was 
Scrupled  by  some  of  them)  but  by  mu- 
tual desires  and  agreement  each  testi- 
fied: These  two  Companyes  did  set 
apart  one  to  Baptize  the  rest,  so  it  was 
Solemnly  performed  by  them. 

Mr.  Blunt  baptized  Mr.  Blacklock, 
yt  was  a  Teacher  amongst  them,  and 
Mr.  Blunt  being  baptized,  he  and  Mr. 
Blacklock  Baptized    ye  rest  of   their 


should  be  constituted  a  distinct  church; 
which  was  performed  the  r2th  of  Sept. 
1633.  And  as  they  believed  that  bap- 
tism was  not  rightly  administered  to 
infants,  so  they  looked  upon  the  bap- 
tism they  had  received  in  that  age  as 
invalid  :  whereupon  most  or  all  of  them 
received  a  new  baptism.  (5)  Their 
minister  was  Mr.  John  Spilsbury. 
What  number  they  were  is  uncertain, 
because  in  the  mentioning  of  the 
names  of  about  twenty  men  and  wo- 
men it  is  added,  with  divers  others. 

Intheyearl638Mr.William((;)Kiffin, 
Mr.  Thomas  Wilson,  and  others  being 
of  the  same  judgment,  were  upon  their 
request,  dismissed  to  the  said  Mr.  Spils- 
bury's  congregation. 

(7)  In  the  year  1639  another  congre- 
gation of  Baptists  was  formed,  wliose 
place  of  meeting  was  in  Crutched — 
Fryars;  the  chief  promoters  of  which 
were  Mr.  Green,  Mr.  Paul  Hobson  and 
Captain  Spencer. 
Crosby,  vol.  1,  pp.  148-9. 
For  in  the  year  1640,  this  church  be- 
came two  by  consent;  just  half,  says 
the  manuscript,  being  with  Mr.  P. 
Barebone,  and  the  other  half  with  Mr, 
Henry  Jessey. 
Crosby,  vol.  3,  p.  41. 
Several  sober  and  pious  persons  be- 
longing to  the  congregations  of  the  dis- 
senters about  London  were  convinced 
that  believers  were  the  only  proper 
subjects  of  baptism  and  that  it  ought 
to  be  administered  by  immersion  or 
dipping  the  whole  body  into  the  water, 
in  resemblance  of  a  burial  and  resur- 
rection according  to  Colos.  II.,  12  and 
Rom.  VI.,  4.  That  they  often  met  to- 
gether to  pray  and  confer  about  this 
matter  and  to  consult  what  methods 
they  should  take  to  enjoy  this  ordin- 
ance in  its  primitive  purity  :  That  they 
could  not  be  satisfyed  about  any  ad- 
ministrator in  England,  to  begin  this 
practice  ;  because  tho'  some  in  this  na- 
tion rejected  the  baptism  of  infants, 
yet  they  had  not  as  they  knew  of  re- 
vived the  ancient  custom  of  immersion: 
But  hearing  that  some  in  the  Nether- 
lands practiced  it,  they  agreed  to  send 
over  one  Mr.  Richard  Blunt,  who  un- 
derstood the  Dutch  language:  That  he 
went  accordingly  carrying  letters  of 
recommendation  with  him  and  was 
kindly  received  both  by  the  church 
there  and  Mr.  John  Batten  their 
teacher. 

That  upon  liis  return  he  baptized 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  83 


friends  yt  ware  so  minded,  and  many  Mr.  Samuel  Blacklock,  a  minister  and 

being  added  to  tliem   they  increased  these  two   baptized   the  rest  of  their 

much."  company,  [whose    names    are    in   the 

Gould,  Open    Communion    and   the  manuscript    to    the  number  of    fifty- 

Baptists  of  Norwich,  Intro,  pp.  cxxiii,  three]. 

cxxiv.  Crosby,  vol.  1,  pp.  101-2. 


It  will  be  apparent  even  upon  casual  observation 
that  the  second  of  the  above  papers  is  either  derived 
from  the  first  or  from  independent  tradition  of  the 
facts  set  forth  in  the  first.  It  is,  therefore,  confess- 
edly inferior  to  the  contemporary  record,  but  it  is 
still  not  unworthy  of  the  confidence  that  has  always 
been  bestowed  upon  it. 

It  may  be  entertaining  to  observe  the  items  in 
which  the  later  account  varies  from  the  earlier. 
These  items  will  be  indicated  by  figures  set  down  in 
the  text  above  to  which  like  figures  will  correspond 
in  this  place.  In  describing  the  events  of  the  year 
1633  the  later  account  lays  greater  emphasis  upon 
(1)  opposition  to  infant  baptism  which  is  twice  defi- 
nitely alluded  to,  whereas  the  earlier  merely  speaks 
of  "much  discussing,  these  denying  Truth  of  ye 
Parish  Churches,"  presumably  in  divers  other  points 
.as  well  as  regarding  infant  baptism. 

(2)  The  seceding  church  demanded  that  they  should 
be  retained  by  the  Congregationalists  in  "ye  Com- 
munion of  those  Churches  in  Order  amongst  them- 
selves," whether  the  same  were  situated  in  Eng- 
land or  Holland  or  America;  but  that  has  very  nat- 
urally faded  out  of  the  later  account  entirely. 
(3j  The  earlier  account  says,  "Mr.  Eaton  wth  some 


84  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

others  receiving  a  further  baptism" ;  the  later  account 
makes  somewhat  elaborate  explanations  to  the  effect 
that  "as  they  believed  that  baptism  was  not  rightly 
administered  to  infants,  so  they  looked  upon  the 
baptism  they  had  received  in  that  age  as  invalid  : 
whereupon  most  or  all  of  them  received  a  new  bap- 
tism." In  point  of  fact  only  a  small  proportion 
of  them  appear  to  have  received  a  further  baptism. 
This  constitutes  an  instance  of  exaggeration,  but  it  is 
hardly  of  sufficient  consequence  to  invalidate  the 
authority  of  the  later  account. 

(4)  Mr.  Samuel  Eaton,  the  leader  in  procuring  a 
further  baptism  in  1633  was  also  prominent  in  that 
regard  in  1638,  according  to  the  earlier  account.  Is 
it  possible  that  he  is  the  same  Samuel  Eaton  who 
became  pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  at  New 
Haven,  Conn.,  when  it  was  established  on  the  22d 
of  August,  1639,  (Dexter,  Congregationalism,  p. 
413,  note;  cf.  p.  587,  note)  and  returning  to  England 
in  1640  founded  the  Congregational  Church  at  Duck- 
ingfield  (Dexter,  p.  635,  note). 

(5)  The  later  account  has  blundered  in  asserting 
that  John  Spilsbury  was  minister  of  the  church  at 
the  time  of  its  secession  in  1633,  but  the  earlier  ren- 
ders it  clear  that  he  was  acting  in  that  character  in 
1638.  (6)  It  has  also  blundered  in  asserting  that 
William  Kiffin  joined  Spilsbury's  church  in  1638. 
That  was  the  year  in  which  he  "united  with  an  In- 
dependent congregation"  (Ivimey,2,304)which  must 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  85 

have  been  Mr.  Jessey's  church.  The  earlier  account 
shows  that  he  did  not  join  Spilbury's  church  at  this 
time,  and  I  have  found  no  contemporary  evidence 
that  he  ever  at  any  time  belonged  to  it. 

(7)  What  the  later  account  says  about  the  forma- 
tion of  a  church  in  Crutched-Fryars  in  1639  may 
be  correct  or  it  may  not.  Nothing  in  the  earlier 
gives  support  to  it,  and  Dr.  Dexter  (Congregation- 
ism,  pp.  649-50)  appears  to  claim  Mr.  Green  (who 
is  set  down  among  the  members  of  Crutched-Fryars 
Church)  as  a  Brownist.  The  omission  of  many  names 
and  dates  in  the  later  account  is  a  striking  feature. 
It  is  here  that  the  earlier  everywhere  vindicates  its 
superiority.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  term  Bap- 
tist as  applied  in  this  connection  to  a  religious  De- 
nomination occurs  in  the  later  and  not  in  the  earlier 
account. 

The  second  division  of  the  Jessey  Church  Records, 
beginning  with  the  disruption  of  Jessey's  church  in 
1640,  is  perhaps  the  most  important.  That  disrup- 
tion would  appear  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
circumstance  that  one  section  of  the  church  were  in- 
clined to  move  more  rapidly  in  the  direction  of  re- 
form than  the  other.  Those  who  desired  to  remain 
upon  the  strictly  Independent  foundation  hitherto 
occupied  by  the  church  rallied  to  Mr.  P.  Barebone, 
while  those  who  were  willing  to  travel  beyond  that 
position  gathered  about  the  regular  pastor,  Mr. 
Jessey. 


86  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

(8)  Mr.  Richard  Blunt  who  had  gone  forth  with 
the  secession  in  1633,  had  meanwhile  returned  to 
Mr.  Jessey's  church  and  in  1640  sided  with  the 
party  of  the  pastor.  In  addition  he  had  become 
"convinced  of  baptism  yt  also  it  ought  to  be  by  dip- 
ing  ye  Body  into  ye  Water,  resembling  Burial 
and  riseing  again.  Col.  11, ,  12  and  Rom.  YI.,  4." 
Why  should  he  have  been  inclined  to  lay  stress  upon 
this  particular  argument,  among  so  many  others,  in 
favor  of  immersion  ?  That  was  the  argument  and 
those  were  the  passages  of  Scripture  urged  in  sup- 
port of  immersion  by  Leonard  Buslier  (H.  K.  Soc. 
Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Conscience,  pp.  59,  60).  Were 
these  brethren  acquainted  with  Busher's  Treatise  on 
Religion's  Peace,  and  did  they  know  anything  about 
the  author  of  it  ?  If  they  knew  him  they  were  aware 
that  he  had  not  introduced  immersion  into  England, 
for  they  expressly  declare  that  '•'-none  had  then  so 
practiced  in  England  to  professed  helievers. ' '  If  he 
had  spent  his  last  days  in  Holland  as  was  intimated 
above,  they  perhaps  knew  also  that  he  had  not  intro- 
duced immersion  there,  for  they  sent  to  the  Colle- 
giants  and  not  to  Busher  or  his  followers  to  obtain 
it.  The  apparent  connection  between  Blunt  and 
Busher  at  this  point  may  be  thought  to  lessen  the 
possibility  that  Busher  had  ever  been  an  immersion- 
ist  in  practice. 

(9)  There  were,  according  to  the  earlier  records, 
"two  companies"  who    introduced    immersion  into 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  87 

England.  Richard  Blunt  and  his  friends  in  the  Jes- 
sey  Church  on  the  one  part  first  "had  sober  confer- 
ance  about  it  in  ye  Church.''''  After  that  they  also 
had  conference  '■''wth  some  of  the  forenamed.,''''  v^ho 
were  all  members  of  Mr.  Spilsburj's  church.  In 
1641  these  two  parties  "had  mett  in  two  companies 
and  did  intend  so  to  meet  after  this,'-'  and  these 
"two  companies"  did  each  set  apart  one  to  baptize 
the  rest,  Mr.  Blunt  baptizing  those  from  the  Jessey 
Church,  and  Mr.  Blacklock  those  from  the  Spilsbury 
Church,  after  Mr.  Blacklock  had  first  received  bap- 
tism from  Blunt,  who  in  his  turn  had  received  it  in 
Holland. 

The  general  result  of  our  investigation  is  that  these 
two  documents  complement  and  mutually  support 
each  other.  The  earlier  demonstrates  that  the  later 
is  not  far  astray,  while  the  later  casts  a  better  light 
upon  the  earlier  and  imparts  additional  force  and 
certainty  to  its  statements. 

Certain  items  rise  above  others  in  importance  in 
these  documents.  The  first  of  these  is  the  positive 
statement  under  the  year  1640  found  in  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  regarding  immersion:  '- '■none  having 
then  so  practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers.'''' 
In  the  other  manuscript  that  point  is  less  definitely  ex- 
pressed as  follows:  '•''they  could  not  he  satisfy ed  about 
any  administrator  in  England  tohegin  this  practice,' 
hecause  though  some  in  this  nation  rejected  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.^  yet  they  had  not  as  they  knew  of  re- 


88  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

vived  the  antient  custom  of  immersion j''''  but  even 
that  is  sufficiently  definite  to  express  a  clear  idea. 

In  the  earlier  account  we  have  the  unqualified  asser- 
tion of  the  most  important  document  in  the  history 
of  Particular  Baptists  that  prior  to  the  year  1640 
nobody  at  all  had  practiced  in  England  the  immer- 
sion of  professed  believers.  The  Anabaptists  had 
not  practiced  it,  who  came  over  from  Holland  in 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  followers  of  Hel- 
wys  and  Murton  had  not  practiced  it.  fcjpilsbury  and 
his  people,  who  seceded  in  1633,  had  not  practiced  it. 
Nobody  else  had  practiced  it.  That  is  not  the  word 
of  an  adversary.  It  expresses  the  understanding 
which  the  people  themselves  who  introduced  immer- 
sion into  England  had  of  the  situation  under  which 
they  acted.  There  is  a  possibility  that  they  may 
have  been  mistaken  in  the'^r  claim;  but  after  two 
hundred  and  fifty-five  years  of  careful  investigation 
no  scholar  has  been  found  to  rise  up  and  show  that 
they  were  in  error,  and  until  somebody  shall  have 
accomplished  that  feat  their  word  must  be  allowed 
to  stand.  They  were  men  of  intelligence;  their  in- 
terests were  much  concerned;  they  must  have  made 
careful  inquiry;  they  understood  whereof  they  af- 
firmed, and  their  testimony  applies  first  of  all  to  the 
Borough  of  Southwark  which  they  inhabited  in  com- 
pany with  their  immediate  neighbor,  Dr.  Daniel 
Featley. 

The  other  leading  item  is  that  Mr.  Blunt  was  sent 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  89 

to  Holland  in  1640  to  obtain  immersion;  that  he 
went  to  John  Batten,  well  known  as  a  teacher  among 
the  Collegiants,  and,  receiving  the  rite  at  his  hands, 
retm-ned  to  England.  Here  he  was  instrumental  in 
reviving  immersion  by  procuring  the  ordinance  to 
be  administered  to  "two  companies,"  one  of  which 
had  been  derived  from  the  church  of  Mr.  Spilsbury 
and  the  other  from  the  church  of  Mr.  Henry  Jessey. 
In  my  opinion  these  facts  thus  clearly  established 
by  the  two  most  important  and  valuable  documents,  all 
things  considered,  that  are  connected  with  our  his- 
tory, constitute  irrefragable  proofs  that  immersion 
was  introduced  into  England  in  the  year  1641. 
Here  is  an  unquestionable  account  of  a  complete 
change.  Prior  to  1641  the  followers  of  Helwys  and 
Murton  on  the  one  hand  and  the  followers,  of  Spils" 
bury  on  the  other  were  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
or  pouring  for  baptism;  in  the  year  1641  immersion 
was  fetched  out  of  Holland  and  a  new  epoch  was  in- 
troduced. There  is  no  chance  anywhere  to  evade 
that  plain  conclusion.  If  it  may  not  stand  secure, 
then  the  study  of  history  is  a  delusion;  no  fact  of 
history  can  ever  be  established. 


90  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


VII. 

EIGHT   MONUMENTS  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  IM- 
MERSION INTO  ENGLAND  IN  THE  YEAR  1641. 

THE  Jessey  Church  Records  prove  that  immersion 
was  introduced  into  England  in  the  year  1641. 
That  was  an  important  change.  In  all  cases  where 
important  changes  occur  it  is  to  be  anticipated  that 
historical  monuments  of  some  kind  will  be  left  behind 
to  indicate  that  they  took  place.  One  of  the  most 
prominent  monuments  of  this  change  is  the  Fortieth 
Article  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Seven  Con- 
gregations or  Churches  of  Christ  in  London^  16Jf.Ji,^ 
prescribing  immersion  as  follows:  "That  the  way 
and  manner  of  the  dispensing  of  this  ordinance  is 
dipping  or  plunging  the  hody  under  water;  it  being 
a  sign  must  answer  the  things  signified,  which  is 
that  interest  the  saints  have  in  the  death,  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ;  and  that  as  certainly  as  the 
body  is  buried  under  water  and  risen  again;  so  cer- 
tainly shall  the  bodies  of  the  saints  be  raised  by  the 
power  of  Christ  in  the  day  of  the  resurrection  to 
reign  with  Christ." 

The  dipjnng  or  plunging  the  hody  under  loater 
as  applied  to  believers  is  here  for  the  first  time  pre- 
scribed by  an  English  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  91' 

year  1644  agrees  with  the  Jessey  Church  Records, 
which  represent  that  immersion  was  first  introduced 
in  1641.  If  immersion  had  previously  been  in  use, 
it  is  very  hard  to  understand  why  it  should  not  have 
been  required  in  any  of  the  previous  Confessions. 
The  reason  why  it  was  first  prescribed  in  1644  is  tO' 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  it  was  not  in  use  in  England 
until  1641.  The  Confession  of  1644  is  an  enduring- 
monument  to  the  change  that  was  made  in  1641. 

The  Confession  above  mentioned,  which  for  the 
first  time  prescribes  dipping,  also  carefully  specifies 
the  manner  in  which  it  shall  be  performed,  as  fol- 
lows: "The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  dip  or  plunge 
(yet  so  as  convenient  garments  be  both  upon  the 
administrator  and  subject  with  all  modesty)."  Mani- 
festly this  direction  about  clothing  was  added  because 
it  was  to  be  apprehended  that  some  might  administer 
the  ordinance  without  having  convenient  garments 
upon  the  administrator  and  subject.  That  circum- 
stance indicates  that  the  rite  was  still  so  new  to  them* 
that  the  manner  of  performing  it  was  as  yet  unset- 
tled. Such  precautions  are  not  appended  to  Baptist 
confessions  in  our  day,  because  at  present  the  way 
and  manner  of  dispensing  the  ordinance  of  baptism' 
are  so  well  understood  that  it  can  not  be  anticipated 
that  either  the  subject  or  the  administrator  shall  be 
without  suitable  garments.  But  they  must  have 
been  necessary  on  this  occasion.  This  provision 
likewise  accords   with  the   Jessey  Church  Records,. 


-92  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

•which  show  that  immersion  was  first  introduced  into 
England  in  1641,  and  it  is  a  monument  of  the  re- 
cent change  from  sprinkling  to  immersion. 

That  the  name  Baptist  first  came  into  use  shortly 
after  1641,  is  another  evidence  of  the  fact  in  ques- 
tion. The  name  Anabaptist  had  long  been  re- 
sented. The  brethren  frequently  designated  them- 
selves as  those  who  were  "unjustly  called  Anabap- 
tists" (Crosby,  vol.  2,  Appendix,  p.  51).  But  so 
long  as  their  contention  related  merely  to  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism  they  could  never  shake  off  the 
name  Anabaptists.  Their  act  of  baptism  being  the 
same  as  that  employed  by  other  Christians,  namely, 
pouring  and  sprinkling,  it  was  always  described  as 
a  mere  repetition  of  baptism — as  Anabaptism.  But 
when  another  act  was  introduced,  namely,  immersion, 
it  then  became  possible  for  the  brethren  to  obtain  a 
new  designation.  Henceforth  they  were  called  "bap- 
tized Christians" j!?a/'  excellence^  and  in  due  time  Bap- 
tists. The  earliest  instance  in  which  this  name  occurs 
as  a  denominational  designation,  so  far  as  my  infor- 
mation goes,  befell  in  the  year  1644,  three  years  after 
immersion  had  been  introduced.  The  Anabaptists 
Groundwork  for  Reformation,  1644,  p.  23,  says:  "I 
ask  T[homas]  L[amb]  and  the  rest  of  those  Baptists, 
or  Dippers,  that  will  not  be  called  Anabaptists 
(though  they  baptize  some  that  have  been  twice  bap- 
tized before)  what  rule  they  have  by  word  or  exam- 
ple in  Scripture,  for  their  going  men  and  women  to- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  93 

gether  into  the  water  and  for  their  manner  of  dip- 
ping, and  every  circumstance  and  action  they  per- 
form concerning  the  same."  (Dexter,  True  Story, 
p.  56).  Baillie,  in  "Anabaptism  the  True  Founda- 
tion of  Independency,  etc.,"  London,  1646,  p.  30, 
says:  "Many  more  of  their  women  do  venture  to 
preach  among  the  Baptists  than  among  the  Brown- 
ists  in  England."     (Barclay,  p.  157.) 

Another  instance  in  which  the  name  occurs,  be- 
longs to  the  year  1654,  when  Mr.  William  Brit- 
ten published  a  work  entitled  The  Moderate  Bap- 
tist; briefly  showing  the  Scripture-way  for  that  initia- 
tory sacrament  of  baptism,  together  with  divers 
queries,  considerations,  errors  and  mistakes,  in  and 
about  the  work  of  religion.  Wherein  may  appear  that 
the  Baptists  of  our  times  held  not  those  strange  opin- 
ions as  many  heretofore  have  done,  etc,  (Crosby,  vol. 
1,  p.  254.)  In  the  same  year  R.  Farnsworth  issued  an 
address:  "To  you  that  are  called  by  the  name  of 
Baptists  or  Baptized  people,  etc."  (Dexter,  True 
Story,  p.  97.)  Cotton  Mather  in  the  Magnalia,  Hart- 
ford, 1820,  vol.  2,  p.  459,  represents  what  seems  to 
have  been  the  true  state  of  the  case  when  he  says, 
"Now  they  declared  our  infant  baptism  to  be  a  mere 
nullity  and  they  arrogate  unto  themselves  the  title  of 
-Baptists,  as  if  none  were  Jjciptized  hut  themselves.'''' 
The  name  Baptist  was  in  1644  first  claimed  by  our 
people.      They  have  claimed  it  ever  since. 

Another  monument  is  the  baptismal  controversy. 


-94  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

It  began  shortly  after  1641.  Hitherto  the  Christian 
world  had  moved  almost  together  in  reference  to  the 
act  of  baptism  so  that  there  had  been  small  occasion 
for  a  baptismal  controversy.  For  twelve  centuries 
they  had  stood  so  unitedly  in  favor  of  immersion  that 
the  act  of  baptism  was  little  discussed.  For  four 
centuries  later  Western  Christendom  had  moved  so 
uniformly  in  the  direction  of  pouring  and  sprinkling 
that  men  seldom  contended  for  the  original  usage. 
But  now  that  a  body  of  Christian  people  had  risen 
up  to  stem  the  tide  of  innovation  and  sail  against  the 
current,  there  was  serious  business  on  hand.  When 
Edward  Barber  sent  forth  "A  Small  Treatise  of 
Baptisme  or  Dippincf  a  new  note  had  been  struck. 
The  man  was  here  asserting  against  the  whole  of 
Western  Christendom  that  baptism  is  synonymous 
with  dipping;  that  there  is  no  other  baptism  but 
dij)pi7ig.  He  aimed  to  show  "that  the  Lord  Christ 
ordained  Dipping"  and  not  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
The  claim  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  act  of 
baptism  had  been  a  long  while  unknown  in  England. 
A.  R.  expressed  the  idea  still  more  distinctly 
on   the  title   page   of   his  "Treatise   of  the  Yanity 

of  Childishe  Baptism wherein  is  also  proved 

that  Baptizing  is  Dipping  and  Dipping  is  Baptiz- 
ing.'''' In  other  words  he  contended  that  immersion 
is  the  exclusive  act  of  baptism.  For  ages  before  this 
time  that  contention  had  not  been  urged  in  England. 
Here  began  the  earliest  notes  of  that  baptismal  con- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  95 

troversy  which  is  still  with  us.  This  controversy 
opening  at  least  as  early  as  1642  is  a  monument  of 
the  introduction  of  immersion,  an  event,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  Jessey  Church  Records  took  place  in 
1641.  Prior  to  that  date  no  English  books  have 
been  instanced  which  were  written  for  the  special 
purpose  of  proving  that  imimersion  alone  is  baptism; 
after  that  date  such  works  abound  in  England.  No- 
body wrote  in  favor  of  immersion  as  the  exclusive 
act  ofhaptism  prior  to  1641,  for  the  reason  that  no- 
body in  England  at  that  period  practiced  immersion 
alone  for  baptism:  divers  wrote  in  favor  of  it  after 
1641,  for  the  reason  that  people  began  to  practice  it 
there  in  1641.  The  case  of  Leonard  Busher  does 
not  furnish  an  exception  since  it  cannot  be  proven 
that  his  work  was  published  in  England.  Besides 
it  is  devoted  to  another  subject,  and  contains  only  a 
brief  reference  to  dipping. 

Another  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  immer- 
sion 1641  is  contained  in  the  fact  that  before  that 
time  no  instances  are  found  where  churches  were 
divided  on  this  issue.  They  divided  on  other  issues 
but  not  upon  this  one.  After  1641  it  was  not  un- 
usual for  churches  to  divide  about  immersion.'  B. 
Ryves  in  Mercurius  Rusticus,  Oxford,  1646,  p.  22, 
gives  a  description  of  the  condition  of  affairs  at 
Chelmsford  in  Essex,  and  informs  us  that:  "Since 
this  Magnified  Reformation  was  set  on  foot  this 
towne  (as  indeed  most  Corporations,  as  we  find  by 


96  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

experience  are  Nurceries  of  Faction  and  Rebellion) 
is  so  filled  with  Sectaries,  especially  Brownists  and 
Anabaptists  that  a  third  part  of  the  people  refuse  to 
communicate  in  the  Church-Lyturgie,  and  halfe  re- 
fuse to  receive  the  blessed  Sacrament,  unlesse  they 
may  receive  it  in  vphat  posture  they  please  to  take 
it.  They  have  amongst  them  two  sorts  of  Anabap- 
tists ;  the  one  they  call  the  Old  Men  or  Aspersi,  be- 
cause they  were  but  sprinkled  :  the  other  they  call 
the  New  Men  or  the  Immersi  because  they  were 
overwhelmed  in  their  Rebaptization." 

N.  Homes  in  his  Vindication  of  Baptizing  Believ- 
ers' Infants,  etc.,  164:5,  p.  v.  says:  "One  congre- 
gation at  first  adding  to  their  Infant  Baptisme  the 
adult  baptisme  of  sprinkling  :  then  not  resting  there- 
in, endeavoring  to  adde  to  that  a  dipping,  even  to 
the  breaking  to  pieces  of  their  congregation."  (Dex- 
ter, True  Story,  pp.  47-8,  note.)  These  divisions 
are  indications  of  the  fact  that  immersion  had  been 
introduced  as  asserted  by  the  Jessey  Church  Records 
in  1641.  Many  of  the  brethren  would  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  the  innovation  and  these  drew  away  to  them- 
selves, leaving  the  immersion  party  in  control  of  the 
ground.  Reasons  are  not  wanting  to  support  the 
conclusion  that  the  separation  between  the  simple 
Anabaptists  and  the  Dippers  was  not  completed  un- 
til about  the  year  1660  (Crosby,  3,  77).  In  some 
cases  it  "broke  to  pieces  the  congregation,"  while 
in  others  it  resulted  in  the  formation  of  "Open  Bap- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  97 

tist"  churches,  some  of  which  still  remain  in  Eng- 
land as  a  monument  of  the  introduction  of  immersion. 

Prior  to  1641  the  followers  of  Murton  and  Helwvs 
were  in  close  relations  with  the  Mennonites,  and  in 
1626  a  movement  was  set  on  foot  looking  to  the 
organic  union  of  the  two  parties  (Evans,  vol.  2,  pp. 
24-30).  After  the  year  1641  those  relations  were 
entirely  broken  off,  and  it  is  claimed  by  the  best 
Mennonite  scholarship  that  this  alienation  was 
caused  by  the  introduction  of  immersion.  The 
Mennonites  being  henceforward  recognized  as  un- 
baptized  people  were  not  disposed  to  continue  the 
fellowship  and  friendship  that  had  hitherto  prevailed. 
(Scheffer,  De  Brownisten,  p.  156).  That  separation 
was  one  of  the  striking  monuments  of  the  rejection 
of  pouring  and  sprinkling,  which  had  always  been 
practiced  by  Mennonites,  and  of  the  adoption  of 
immersion. 

Another  monument  of  the  fact  that  immersion 
was  introduced  into  England  in  1641  is  found  in  the 
alarm  that  was  occasioned  shortly  afterwards  re- 
specting the  effect  of  the  ordinance  upon  the  health 
of  the  people  who  should  submit  to  it.  No  records 
have  been  produced  of  the  existence  of  any  such 
feeling  prior  to  the  year  1641,  for  the  reason  that  no 
such  custom  as  immersion  then  existed  in  England; 
but  after  1641  the  apprehension  was  very  sincere,  even 
though  it  was  not  very  just.  It  was  experienced  by 
such  men  as  Richard   Baxter  and  Walter  Cradock, 

7 


98  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

and  was  also  considerably  prevalent  among  the  com- 
mon people,  who  sometimes  supposed  that  the  Bap- 
tists were  a  cruel  and  murderous  sect  merely  because 
they  used  immersion.  In  the  year  1646  Mr.  Samuel 
Gates  was  tried  for  his  life  at  Chelmsford  because 
Anne  Martin  died  within  a  few  weeks  after  she  had 
been  baptized  by  him.  (Crosby,  vol.  1,  pp.  236-8.) 
This  was  the  result  of  a  wild  and  senseless  panic, 
but  it  was  a  panic  that  occurred  because  the  ordi- 
nance was  so  very  new  and  as  yet  the  public  was  but 
little  accustomed  to  it.  A  panic  of  that  kind  never 
occurred  at  any  other  period  in  English  history. 
After  a  few  years  it  would  liave  been  found  impos- 
sible to  produce  an  excitement  of  this  sort,  since  the 
people  had  then  become  better  acquainted  with  the 
practice  of  dipping  and  the  effects  of  dipping  upon 
the  health  of  those  baptized. 

An  eighth  monument  of  the  change  from  sprin- 
kling and  pouring  to  immersion,  is  found  in  the 
word  "rhantise"  which  appears  then  to  have  first 
come  into  use  in  English.  When  it  first  began  to 
be  denied  that  sprinkling  was  baptizing,  it  became 
necessary  to  declare  in  learned  speech  just  what  it 
might  be.  The  brethren  were  put  upon  distinctions; 
they  were  compelled  to  find  a  name  for  sprinkling, 
and  since  "baptize"  was  transferred  from  the  Greek 
language  it  was  natural  to  look  in  that  direction. 
Accordingly  the  word  "rhantize"  was  chosen.  The 
beginning  of  this  movement  in  philology  appears  to 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  99 

have  been  made  by  A.  R[itor]  in  his  "Treatise  of  the 
Vanity  of  Childish-Baptisme,"  London,  1642,  p.  11, 
where  he  makes  use  of  the  original  Greek  word  as 
follows:  "For  a  learned  and  approved  Author  has 
noted  the  Greeke  wants  not  words  to  express  any 
other  act  as  well  as  dipping:  If  the  institution  could 
beare  it,  upon  Matt,  3,11,  for  the  Greek  to  sprinkle 
is  pavTiZuf.  Much  humane  authority,  both  ancient 
and  moderne,  might  be  produced  herein,  all  which 
would  be  needlesse,  seeing  the  Scripture  itself  is  so 
cleere  in  the  point,"  etc. 

Rev.  Christopher  Blackwood  in  his  "Storming  of 
Antichrist  in  his  strongest  Garrisons,  of  compulsion 
of  conscience  and  Infants  Baptisme,"  London,  1644, 
appears  to  have  improved  upon  the  suggestion  of 
A.  R.  by  transferring  the  Greek  word  to  English. 
Thereupon  an  anonymous  author  speedily  issues  a 
work  entitled  "Mock  Majesty,  or  the  Siege  of  Muen- 
ster, "  London,  1644,  and  begins  the  preface  as  fol- 
lows :  "To  the  intelligent  Reader,  Baptized  or  lian- 
tized :  Thou  must  excuse  me  for  this  pretty  new- 
stamped  word.  It  is  pitty  but  it  should  signify 
something  in  English.  Whether  it  do  so  or  no,  it 
is  not  a  week  since  I  first  met  with  it,  and  that  in  a 
way  of  scorn  and  contempt  of  the  Baptism  of  our 
Church  (See  Christopher  Blackwood  in  his  book  en- 
titled the  Storming  of  Antichrist  in  his  two  strongest 
holds,  etc.,  very  lately  published)."  There  are  other 
indications  in  literature  that  the  word  was  then  first 


100  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

minted.  Thomas  Blake,  who  favored  and  practiced 
the  rite  of  pouring,  says  in  his  "Infants  Baptism  freed 
from  Antichristianism,"  London,  164:5,  p.  i:  "I  have 
seen  several  dipped  ;  I  never  saw  nor  heard  of  any 
sprinkled  (or  as  some  of  you  use  to  speak  rantized.'''' 
(Wall,  History,  vol.  2,  402).  The  word  "rhantize" 
is  a  monument  of  the  change  from  sprinkling  to 
immersion,  tliat,  like  the  name  Baptist,  abides  with 
us  still. 

There  are  yet  other  monuments  of  that  great 
change  ;  but  the  eight  that  I  have  instanced  above 
will  suffice  to  show  that  it  produced  an  impression. 
This  impression  was  not  confined  to  the  age  in  which 
the  change  occurred,  but  marks  of  it  still  are  apparent 
in  our  own  age  and  every  one  of  them  is  in  harmony 
with  the  Jessey  Church  Kecords  which  represent  that 
immersion  was  introduced  again  into  England  in  the 
year  1641.  In  particular,  as  long  as  the  name  Bap- 
tist shall  be  uttered  anywhere  in  the  world  it  will 
point  back  with  unerring  certainty  to  that  famous 
event  in  that  famous  "yeare  of  jubilee,"  as  Edward 
Barber  phrases  it.  The  name  was  not  in  use  before 
that  period;  it  has  been  constantly  applied  as  a  de- 
nominational designation  to  our  people  ever  since 
that  date. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  101 


VIII. 
MR.  PRAISEGOD   BAREBONE. 

THIS  excellent  person  was  a  contemporary  and 
an  eyewitness  of  the  event  here  under  discus- 
sion, and  he  confirms  the  testimony  of  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  in  every  particular. 

Mr.  Barebone  was  a  famous  and  worthy  man. 
Few  rise  to  such  heights  of  influence  and  usefulness. 
Born  in  London  in  1596  he  became  one  of  the  fore- 
most notables  of  the  Puritan  party.  Mr.  Carlyle 
says:  "Braisegod,  though  he  deals  in  leather,  and 
has  a  name  which  can  be  misspelt,  one  discerns  to  be 
the  son  of  Pious  parents  :  to  be  himself  a  man  of 
piety,  of  understanding  and  weight — and  even  of 
considerable  private  capital,  my  witty  flunky  friends. " 
(Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  New  York,  1847, 
p.  196).  He  had  a  spacious  private  dwelling  in 
Fleet  Street  where  he  preached  the  gospel  to  a 
church  that  was  much  devoted  to  the  special  friend 
of  Cromwell,  and  in  many  other  ways  he  made  a 
distinguished  figure  in  the  England  of  his  genera- 
tion. 

Some  have  claimed  that  he  was  a  Baptist  preach- 
er ;  but  Ivimey  is  not  certain  on  this  point  (History, 
vol.  1,  p.  157).     The  Baptist  Encyclopaedia  on  the 


102  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

contrary  has  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  it.  In 
its  biography  of  him  as  set  forth  under  his  name  it 
styles  him  a  "Baptist  minister,"  "our  worthy  bro- 
ther" who  was  "unquestionably  a  godly  and  a  great 
man."  High  praise  from  competent  Baptist  author- 
ity. 

This  great  man  gave  his  name  to  one  of  the  Par- 
liaments of  England — that  convened  by  Oliver  Crom- 
well on  the  fourth  of  July,  1653,  Whether  that 
was  done  as  a  tribute  to  his  authority  in  the  Parlia- 
ment, as  the  Baptist  Encyclopaedia  has  intimated,  or 
merely  as  an  expression  of  the  popular  wit,  it  was  a 
more  important  achievement  than  many  men  have 
been  able  to  perform.  To  be  called  by  Cromwell  to 
sit  in  the  Parliament,  was  a  worthy  distinction  ;  to 
get  the  Parliament  called  in  his  honor  was  a  much 
higher  distinction. 

It  is  true  that  the  Baptist  Encyclopaedia  has  blun- 
dered in  claiming  Mr.  Barebone  as  a  Baptist  minis- 
ter, yet  it  was  not  a  very  great  blunder.  There  was 
some  reason  for  this  conclusion,  for  he  was  closely 
connected  with  the  Baptists,  having  been  a  member 
of  the  Jessey  Church  prior  to  the  year  1640.  When 
Mr.  Jessey  began  to  lean  towards  the  Anabaptists, 
Barebone  resisted  him,  for  the  reason  that  he  desired 
to  stand  upon  the  Independent  foundation  which 
the  Church  had  occupied  from  the  beginning.  He 
was  able  to  give  effect  to  his  resistance  by  dividing 
the  ancient  church  and  taking  just  half  of  it  away 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY  103 

from  Mr.  Jessey  in  the  month  of  May,  1640,  as  the 
Jessey  Church  Records  affirm,  leaving  the  other  half 
to  follow  Mr.  Jessey  in  due  season  into  the  Baptist 
fold. 

It  is  likely  that  Barebone  knew  personally  every 
member  of  Jessey 's  Church  and  had  canvassed  them 
over  and  over  again  during  the  schism  which  he  pro- 
duced in  May,  1640.  There  can  be  little  question 
that  he  knew  Mr.  Richard  Blunt  by  heart.  He  may 
indeed  have  heard  something  of  the  project  to  send 
him  into  Holland  that  he  might  fetch  immersion 
over  seas.  At  any  rate  when  that  practice  was  in- 
troduced among  them  in  the  year  1641 — "the  yeare 
of  jubilee" — Mr.  Barebone  got  upon  the  track  of  it 
almost  as  soon  as  anybody  else  in  England.  This 
marked  change  struck  him  very  forcibly,  since  adult 
immersion  was  unknown  in  England  in  1640.  The 
Jessey  Church  Records  declared  with  perfect  truth 
and  decision  "none  having  then  so  practiced  in  Eng- 
land to  professed  believers,"  and  he  knew  that 
every  word  of  it  was  true.  Therefore  Barebone  con- 
firmed every  word  of  the  Jessey  Records. 

And  he  was  an  unexceptionable  witness.  He  had 
much  ability,  combined  with  high  station  and  high 
character.  His  information  was  adequate;  nobody 
outside  of  the  Jessey  Church  itself  was  likely  to 
know  as  much  as  he  knew  regarding  the  transaction. 
Moreover  his  friendship  for  the  Baptists  was  so  con- 
spicuous that  eminent  Baptist  writers,  still  affirm, 


104  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

though  incorrectly,  that  he  was  a  Baptist  minister. 
Such  a  witness  must  command  attention  and  respect 
when  he  testifies  of  the  great  change  that  took  place 
just  under  his  eyes.  He  sat  down  immediately  and 
wrote  the  first  treatise  that  appeared  against  immer- 
sion in  the  baptismal  controversy.  The  full  title  of 
his  pamphlet  is:  A  Discourse  Tending  to  prove  the 
Baptisme  in  or  under  tlie  Defection  of  Antichrist  to 
be  the  Ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  also  That  the 
Baptisme  of  Infants  or  Children  is  Warrantable  and 
Agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  Where  the  per- 
petuity of  the  estate  of  Christ's  Church  in  the 
world,  and  the  Everlastingnesse  of  the  Covenant  of 
Almighty  God  to  Abraham  are  set  forth  as  Maine 
Grounds,  and  sundry  other  particular  things  are 
controverted  and  discussed.  By  P.  B.  [Leather- 
seller  in  Fleet  Street].  London.  Printed  by  R. 
Oulton  and  G.  Dexter,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  Benja- 
min Allen  over  against  the  signe  of  the  Angell  in 
Pope's  Head  Alley,  1642. 

In  the  copy  that  was  handed  me  at  the  Library  of 
the  British  Museum  in  the  summer  of  1880,  the 
words  ''''Leather-seller  in  Meet  Street,''''  which  I  have 
inclosed  in  brackets  above,  were  written  with  ink 
upon  the  title  page  in  the  hand  of  Mr.  Thomason, 
the  bookseller  who  collected  the  King's  Pamphlets. 
This  shows  that  P.  B.  stands  for  Praisegod  Bare- 
bone,  who  was  famous  everywhere  in  that  character. 
The  opinion  of  Thomason  on  this  point  may  not  be 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  105 

infallible,  but  no  reason  has  ever  been  suggested  for 
•calling  it  in  question. 

Mr.  Barebone's  contention  is  that  the  baptism 
which  both  the  Independents  and  the  Anabaptists 
had  received  in  or  under  the  defection  of  Antichrist 
— a  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling — was  the  or- 
dinance of  Jesus  Christ;  that  it  was  good  enough 
for  all  uses,  and  that  there  was  no  kind  of  propriety 
in  introducing  this  new  baptism  by  dipping.  My 
citation  from  the  above  work  as  contained  in  a  man- 
uscript copy  taken  on  the  spot  in  July,  1880,  is  as 
follows: 

"But  now  very  lately  some  are  mightily  taken 
as  having  found  out  a  new  defect  in  the  Baptisme 
.under  the  defection,  which  maketh  such  a  nullitie  of 
Baptisme  in  their  conceit  that  it  is  none  at  all,  and 
it  is  concerning  the  manner  of  Baptizing  wherein 
they  have  espyed  such  default  as  it  maketh  an  abso- 
lute nullity  of  all  person's  Baptisme  but  such  as 
have  been  so  Baptized  according  to  their  new  dis- 
covery; and  so  partly  as  before  in  regard  of  the  sub- 
ject and  partly  in  regard  of  so  great  default  in  the 
manner:  They  not  only  conclude  as  is  before  sayd 
a  nullity  of  their  present  Baptisme,  And  so  but  ad- 
•dresse  themselves  to  be  Baptized  a  third  time  after 
the  true  way  and  manner  they  have  found  out,  which 
they  account  a  precious  truth.  The  particular  of 
their  opinion  and  practice  is  to  Dip,  and  that  persons 
.are  to  be  Dipped,  all  and  every  part  to  be  under  the 


106  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

water,  for  if  all  the  whole  person  be  not  under  the 
water  then  thej  hold  they  are  not  Baptized  with  the 
Baptisme  of  Christ.  As  for  sprinkling  or  pouring 
water  on  the  face  it  is  nothing  at  all  as  they  account, 
and  so  measuring  themselves  by  these  new  thoughts 
as  unbaptized  they  addresse  themselves  to  take  it  up 
after  the  manner  of  Dipping:  but  truly  they  want 
[lack]  a  Dipper  that  hath  authority  from  heaven,  as 
had  John  whom  they  please  to  call  a  Dipper,  of 
whom  it  is  sayd  that  it  might  be  manifested  his  Bap- 
tisme was  from  heaven.  A  man  can  receive  noth- 
ing, that  is,  lawful  authority  or  power  to  Baptize,, 
unlesse  it  be  given  from  heaven,  which  I  desire  they 
would  be  pleased  to  mind  and  they  will  easily  see 
their  third  baptism  is  from  the  earth  and  not  from 
heaven  as  John's  was.  And  if  this  case  be  further 
considered  it  will  appeare  at  the  most  to  be  but  a 
defect  in  the  manner  and  a  coming  short  in  the 
quantity  of  the  Element.  It  is  a  wonderful  thing 
that  a  nullity  should  thereof  follow  forthwith,  of 
which  more  may  be  seen  in  the  same  case  before. 
Againe  that  the  substance  of  an  Ordinance  of  so 
high  a  nature  and  great  concernment  should  be 
founded  in  the  criticknesse  of  a  word  and  in  the 
quantity  of  an  element  is  no  lesse  marveilous,  to  say 
no  more.  Oh  but  Baptisme  is  a  Buriall  as  it  is 
written,  We  are  buried  with  him  in  Baptisme,  etc., 
and  we  are  raised  up  also  to  newnesse  of  life.  This 
Buriall   and   resurrection   only  Dipping  can   import 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  lOT 

and  hold  forth But   inasmuch  as  this  is  a 

very  new  way,  and'the  full  growth  of  it  and  settling 
is  not  yet  known,  if  it  be  to  themselves,  yet  not  to 
me  and  others:  I  will  forbeare  to  say  further  to  it." 
(pp.  12,  13,  15.) 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  in  the  year  1640  the 
Jessey  Church  Records  declare  that  there  was  no- 
immersion  of  adults  in  England — "none  having  then 
so  practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers." 
They  also  affirm  that  in  1641  immersion  was  intro- 
duced from  Holland. 

This  work  of  Mr.  Barebone,  written  in  the  year 
1642,  agrees  exactly  with  those  declarations.  The 
above  extracts  show  conclusively  that  a  '-'•neio  bajy- 
tism''''  had  been  '-'•very  lately''''  introduced,  that  it  was 
not  the  old  rebaptism,  but  involved  a  '''-new  dis- 
cove'nf  which  related  to  the  '-Hrue  way  and  'manner''' 
of  baptizing,  and  that  this  '■Hrue  way  and  mangier''' 
was  '-''to  Dip^  and  that  persons  are  to  he  Dipjxid^  oM 
and  every  part  to  he  under  the  Water.''''  In  order  to 
avail  themselves  of  this  new  baptism  the  parties 
were  compelled  to  renounce  two  former  baptisms, 
one  administered  when  they  were  infants  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  other  when  they  became 
Anabaptists  and  joined  Mr.  Spilsbury's  church  dur- 
ing or  after  the  year  1633.  The  reason  for  renounc- 
ing that  second  baptism  is  asserted  to  be  that  they 
now  accounted  '■'■sjjriiiMiiuj  or  pouring  water  on  the 
face  to  he  nothing  at  all.,''''  and  hence  regarded  them- 


108  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

selves  "«s  unhajptizedy  It  was  on  this  account 
alone  that  they  "addressed  themselves  to  take  it  up 
after  the  manner  of  Dipping." 

If  these  citations  do  not  demonstrate  that  up  to  a 
period  immediately  preceding  the  year  1642,  the 
parties  concerned  were  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
or  pouring  for  baptism;  that  they  then  made  a  "new 
discovery"  of  the  "true  way  and  manner"  of  bap- 
tizing; that  this  "true  way  and  manner"  was  by 
"dipping  all  and  every  part  of  the  body  under 
water,"  and  that  in  order  to  obtain  this  "new  Dip- 
ping" they  had  to  renounce  two  former  baptisms, 
then  human  speech  is  worthless  as  a  vehicle  of  ex- 
pression; it  will  be  impossible  for  anybody  to  set 
forth  definite  ideas  by  that  means.  Taken  in  con- 
nection with  all  the  facts  about  the  history  of  bap- 
tism in  England  and  the  declarations  of  the  Jessey 
Church  Records,  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Barebone 
•constitutes  an  irrefragable  proof.  No  ingenuity  of 
the  mind  of  man  can  overthrow  it. 

The  above  treatise  of  Mr.  Barebone  apparently  met  a 
speedy  reply  from  the  very  man  who  of  all  others  we 
.should  expect  to  enter  the  list  against  him.  Richard 
Blunt,  who  had  gone  to  Holland  to  obtain  immer- 
sion took  up  his  pen  and  probably  before  the  close 
of  the  year  1642  issued  a  printed  work  which  up  to 
this  moment,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  not  been  recov- 
-ered.  It  might  throw  a  desirable  light  on  these  dis- 
cussions if  it  could  be  produced,  and  it  is  worthy  of 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  109' 

diligent  search  in  manj  libraries.  Its  exact  title  can 
not  be  given  :  all  that  we  know  of  it  is  found  in  the 
following  work  by  P.  B[arebone] :  A  Reply  to  the 
Frivolous  and  impertinent  Answer  of  R.  B.  to  the 
Discourse  of  P.  B.^  in  which  Discourse  is  shewed 
that  the  Baptisme  in  the  Defection  of  Antichrist  is 
the  ordinance  of  God,  notwithstanding  the  corrup- 
tions that  attend  the  same,  and  that  the  Baptisme  of 
Infants  is  lawful,  both  of  which  are  vindicated  from 
the  exceptions  of  R.  B.,  and  further  cleared  by  the 
same  author  [i.  e.,  P.  B.].  There  is  also  a  reply  in 
way  of  Answer  to  some  exceptions  of  E[dward] 
B[arber]  against  the  same.  London,  1643.  (Dex- 
ter, True  Story,  p.  88.) 

Dr.  Dexter  supplies  a  citation  from  this  book,  as 
follows,  pp.  19,  30,  31,  61:  ^'-New  things  are  very 
pleasant,  and  many  are  much  taken  with  them,  as  is 
R.  B.  with   d'qyping;    about  which  he  taketh  great 

paines,  produceth  many  scriptures,  etc What 

should  be  the  cause  R.  B.  hath  laboured  so  much  in 
this  matter  of  dipping,  and  taken  notice  of  every 
particular,  I  leave  every  man  free  to  judge:  for  my 
part,  I  take  it  to  be,  as  I  said  before:  It  is  neio  and 
the  man  is  mightily  taken  with  it.  [He  goes  on  to 
charge  R.  B.  with]  denying  the  Baptisme  of  all 
the  Reformed  Churches  and  separed  [separated] 
Churches,  and  also  of  all  other  Christians,  Either 
Reformed  or  yet  in  defection,  only  those  ttao  or  three 
[Churches]  excepted  that  have  within  these  two  or 


110  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

three  yeeres  or  some  such  time  hin  totally  dipped  for 
Baptisine  by  persons  at  the  beginning  unbaptized 
themselves."  [Further  in  referring  to  Barber's  book 
he  cites  his  taunt:  "the  Church  P.  B.  is  a  member 
of  was  uniieard  of  till  within  these  200  yeeres,"  and 
replied] :  "Well;  200  yeeres  is  some  antiquitie,  more 
than  tivo  or  three  yeeres^  such  as  is  the  descent  of  the 
totall  dippers  in  this  Icing  dome.''''   (True  Story,  p.  49.) 

This  passage  confirms  and  clinches  what  Mr.  Bare- 
bone  had  reported  in  the  previous  book.  Dipping 
was  never  taken  for  granted  by  him.  It  was  always 
for  him  a  "new  thing."  The  "descent  of  the  totall 
dippers  in  this  kingdome"  of  England  according  to 
his  most  accurate  information  was  no  longer  than 
"two  or  three  yeeres,  or  some  such  short  time." 

All  this  harmonizes  to  a  nicety  with  the  Jessey 
Church  Records.  That  official  testimony  is  confirm- 
ed by  an  authority  in  this  instance  that  no  man  can 
gainsay ;  distinguished  alike  for  ability,  position, 
opportunities,  information  and  friendly  temper  to- 
wards the  Baptists  ;  so  friendly  that  the  Baptist 
Encyclopaedia  claims  him  for  a  Baptist  minister, 
while  it  justly  honors  him  as  "unquestionably  a 
godly  and  a  great  man." 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  Ill 


IX. 

SEVEN   BAPTIST   WITNESSES. 

^^  TV  TONE  having  then  so  practiced  in  England 
IN  to  professed  believers."  All  the  Baptist 
witnesses  brought  forward  here  agree  with  the  Jes- 
sey  Church  Kecords  that  there  was  a  time  in  Eng- 
land when  the  immersion  of  adult  believers  had  be- 
come extinct,  while  one  or  two  of  them  will  be 
found  to  indicate  the  date  when  it  was  introduced 
again, 

Edward  Barber  was  a  well-known  Baptist  minis- 
ter, who  in  1641  published  a  work  with  the  follow- 
ing title:  A  Small  Treatise  of  Baptisme  or  Dipping, 
Wherein  is  Cleerly  showed  that  the  Lord  Christ  Or- 
•dained  Dipping  for  those  only  that  prof  esse  Repent- 
ance and  Faith.  1.  Proved  by  Scriptures.  2.  By 
Arguments.  3.  A  Parallel  Betwixt  Circumcision 
and  Dipping.  4.  An  Answere  to  some  Objections 
by  P.  B.  Psal.  119,  130.  By  Edward  Barber. 
Printed  in  the  Yeere  1641. 

In  this  treatise  Mr.  Barber  handles  two  several 
propositions,  first  that  the  Lord  Christ  ordained  dip- 
ping and  not  sprinkling  or  pouring  as  the  act  of 
baptism,  and  second  that  he  ordained  dipping  for 
those  only  that  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  not  for 


112  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

immature  infants.  Both  bis  positions  are  duly  argued 
and  the  discussion  is  worthy  of  respect,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  the  first  question  had  not  pre- 
viously been  discussed  by  any  author  in  England,  at 
least  for  a  very  long  period  of  time.  The  author  de- 
votes more  space  to  the  discussion  of  infant  baptism, 
apparently  for  the  reason  that  to  his  mind  the  proofs- 
in  favor  of  immersion  were  so  clear  that  they  did 
not  require  to  be  specially  elaborated. 

I  have  a  manuscript  copy  of  the  material  portions 
of  this  pamphlet,  all  that  I  use  in  this  discussion, 
but  unfortunately  it  omits  to  set  down  the  paging 
of  the  original,  and  therefore  I  shall  be  compelled 
to  indicate  by  other  means  the  places  whence  my 
citations  are  drawn.  The  first  of  these  falls  at  the 
beginning  of  TheTreface.  The  words  are  as  follows: 
"Beloved  Keader,  it  may  seem  strange  that  in  these 
times  when  such  abundance  of  Knowledge  of  the 
Gospell  is  professed  in  the  World,  that  there  should 
notwithstanding  be  generally  such  ignorance,  espe- 
cially in  and  amongst  those  that  professe  themselves-. 
Ministers  thereof,  of  that  glorious  principle  True 
Baptuine  or  Dipj^ing^  Ephe.  4,  5,  Instituted  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  all  that  look  for  life  and 
salvation  by  him  ought  to  be  partakers  of;  it  being 
that  onely  which  was  received  by  the  Apostles  and 
Primitive  Churches,  and  for  a  long  time  unviolably 
kept  and  practiced  by  the  Ministerie  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  planting  of  the  first  Churches,  and  that  the 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  113 

Lord  should  raise  up  mee  a  poore  Tradesman  to  de- 
vulge  this  glorious  Truth,  to  the  World's  Censur- 
ing." 

The  author  here  represents  that  though  abundance 
of  knowledge  of  the  gospel  was  claitned,  yet  in  the 
year  1641  there  was  general  ignorance  of  true  bap- 
tism or  dipping,  not  only  among  the  laity,  but  espe- 
cially among  the  ministry  of  the  gospel.  If  there 
was  such  general  ignorance  of  the  dipping  of  be- 
lievers, even  among  the  clergy,  the  practice  could 
not  have  been  employed  in  England  at  that  time. 
Manifestly  it  had  become  extinct  before  tliat  time. 
That  this  is  his  meaning  is  rendered  apparent  by  the 
last  section  of  the  pamphlet,  which  is  devoted  to  "An 
Answere  to  some  Objections  by  F.  B."  It  has  been 
shown  that  Barebone  had  charged  that:  "truly  they 
want  [lack]  a  Dipper  that  hath  authority  from  heaven 
as  had  John,  whom  they  please  to  call  a  Dipper. "  His 
objection  was  that  if  baptism  was  extinct,  as  it  was 
asserted  to  be,  nobody  had  authority  to  restore  it 
except  one  who  had  received  a  divine  commission 
for  that  purpose.  To  that  contention  Mr.  Barber 
replied  in  his  "Answere  to  Some  Objections  by  P. 
B."  as  follows:  "2,  We  grant  the  Ordinance  being 
lost,  none  but  a  Christ,  a  Moses,  Elias  or  a  Prophet 
from  heaven  can  raise  it;  but  beleevers  having 
Christ,  the  Word  and  Spirit  have  this,"  etc. 

Here  it  is  conceded  by  Mr.  Barber  that  the  ordi- 
nance was  lost,  but  that  believers  having  Christ,  the 


114  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Word  and  Spirit  had  received  a  divine  commission  to 
introduce  it  again  just  as  truly  as  Moses  or  John  the 
Baptist  had  received  commissions  from  the  Lord. 

A  little  farther  on  he  states  the  matter  with  yet 
more  distinctness:  "But  put  the  case  the  Babilon- 
ians  had  destroyed  the  Lord's  Vessels  and  instead 
had  made  them  of  Brase,  Copper,  Tin  or  Lead, 
whereas  they  were  to  be  of  pure  Gold  and  Silver ; 
had  they  beene  then  the  Lord's  Vessels,  or  would 
his  people  have  used  them  in  his  service  and  wor- 
ship, or  brought  them  backe,  Ezra  1.  11,  or  would 
the  Lord  have  accepted  them  for  his  own  Vessels? 
And  thus  it  stands  in  truth  for  the  Dipping  of  Christ, 
destroyed  and  raced  out  hoth  for  matter  and  forme^ 
as  hath  been  formerly  shewed,  the  matter  being  a 
believer  desiring  it,  the  true  forme  dipping  them 
into  Jesus  Christ,''  etc. 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  Edward  Barber,  it 
can  never  be  claimed  that  in  this  Small  Treatise  he 
takes  immersion  for  granted.  That  is  the  very 
thing  that  he  does  not  do.  On  the  contrary,  he  de- 
clares in  terms  that  the  world  was  ignorant  of  it,  for 
the  reason  that  it  had  been  '•'- destroyed  and  raced  out 
hoth  for  matter  and  forme.'''' 

Mr.  Barber  also  indicates  the  exact  time  when  it 
was  introduced  again.  His  book  bears  the  date  of 
1641,  and  in  it  he  claims  the  distinguished  honor  "to 
devulge  this  glorious  Truth  to  the  World's  Censur- 
ing."    Nobody  in  recent  times  had  divulged  it  in 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  115 

England.  His  book  was  the  first  in  modern  ages  to 
make  it  known  to  the  English  public.  The  annals 
of  English  literature  will  be  searched  in  vain  for  a 
volume  that  precedes  it  in  date  and  yet  maintains 
that  nothing  else  is  true  baptism  but  immersion. 
That  view  was  familiar  enough  in  apostolic  days  ;  but 
it  had  long  since  been  ^''destroyed  and  raced  ouf  in 
England.  Therefore  when  Mr.  Barber  employed  the 
word  "divulge"  he  meant  precisely  what  he  said  ;  it 
suited  to  a  nicety  the  facts  of  the  situation.  It  has 
been  claimed  that  Mr.  Barber  did  not  know  all  the 
circumstances  and  that  there  might  have  been  some 
instances  of  immersion  upon  profession  of  faith  in 
various  portions  of  the  country  that  he  was  not  aware 
of  ;  but  nobody  has  anywhere  brought  forward  one 
of  these  instances,  and  until  that  point  is  clearly 
demonstrated  it  may  give  us  no  concern. 

At  the  close  of  his  Preface,  Mr.  Barber  begins  his 
"Small  Treatise  of  Dipping  ;  Wherein  is  clearly 
shewed  that  the  Lord  Christ  ordained  Dipping  for 
those  onely  that  profest  Faith  and  Repentance : 
1,  Proved  by  Scripture  from  the  Commission  of 
Christ  and  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  Primitive 
Churches."  The  author's  discussion  as  presented 
in  this  the  main  body  of  his  tract  confirms  at  every 
point  the  position  I  have  taken. 

His  earnest  care  is  to  demonstrate  at  the  outset 
the  truth  of  the  first  proposition,  namely,  that  the 
Lord   Christ   ordained   dipping.     He    accomplished 


116  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

that  design  by  citing  the  Saviour's  commission  as 
set  forth  in  Matthew  and  Mark  and  bj  translating 
the  Greek  word  baptize  which  occurs  there  instead 
of  transferring  it  into  English.  He  says:  "The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  that  great  Charter  of  the  Holy 
Gospel,  Mt.  28.18.19.20,  having  received  all  power 
in  Heaven  and  Earth,  saith,  Goe,  and  make  Dis- 
ciples, all  Nations,  dipping  them  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Sonne,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you.  And  lo  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

"And  Marke  16.15,  he  saith  :  Goe  yee  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  he 
that  shall  beleeve  and  bee  dipped  shall  be  saved:  but 
he  that  will  not  beleeve  shall  be  damned." 

This  was  an  excellent  argument  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion as  the  exclusive  mode  of  baptism.  The 
correct  translation  of  the  word  baptize  in  the  great 
commission  and  other  passages  of  Scripture  should 
always  settle  the  question  without  further  discussion, 

Mr.  Barber  next  proceeds  to  a  summing  up  in  which 
he  sets  forth  both  the  propositions  of  his  contention 
as  follows:  "Thus  it  is  cleare  that  the  Lord  Christ 
commanded  his  Apostles,  and  servants  of  the  Gospel, 
first  of  all  to  teach  and  thereby  to  gather  Disciples  : 
And  afterwards  to  dip  those  that  were  taught  and 
instructed  in  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospell,  upon  the 
manifestation  of  their  faith  :  which  practice  ought  to 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  117 

continue   to  the   end  of   the  world,   Matth.  28.  20. 
Ephs.  4.  5.     Heb.  13.  8." 

Mr.  Barber  next  presents  other  proofs  drawn  from 
the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  that  dipping  is  the 
only  mode  of  baptism  as  follows:  "Secondly,  that 
the  Apostles  according  to  this  commission  of  Christ 
did  alwayes  practise,  Acts  2.  36.  37.  38.  Peter  lift 
up  his  voice  and  said  to  the  Jewes,  Let  all  the  house 
of  Israel  know  for  a  certainty,  that  God  hath  made 
this  Jesus,  whom  you  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ ;  now  when  they  heard  this  they  were  pricked 
in  their  hearts,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  the  rest  of 
the  Apostles,  men  and  bretheren,  whatt  shall  we  doe; 
Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Kepent  and  be  dipt 
every  one  of  you." 

Still  other  passages  are  brought  forward  by  Mr. 
Barber  to  prove  that  dipping  exclusively  is  true  bap- 
tism and  likewise  that  it  should  be  administered  to 
believers  alone.  As  the  earliest  effort  made  in  the 
England  of  modern  times  to  show  that  immersion  is 
essential  to  Christian  baptism  it  must  be  conceded 
that  his  argument  is  both  direct  and  effective.  A 
simple  translation  of  the  Greek  word  into  the  corre- 
sponding English  ought  to  be  sufiicient  to  convince 
any  mind. 

Barber  himself  was  so  much  pleased  with  his 
achievement  in  this  connection  and  so  well  persuad- 
ed that  he  had  carried  his  point  and  convinced  all 
opponents  that  in  the  balance  of  his  treatise,  which 


118  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

he  devotes  to  an  argument  against  infant  baptism,  he 
almost  uniformly  takes  leave  to  speak  of  baptism  as 
dipping  and  of  infant  baptism  as  infant  dipping, 
although  he  is  sensible  of  the  fact  that  infant  dip- 
ping was  not  then  customary  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  for  only  a  few  lines  below  the  quotation  about 
"the  Dipping  of  Christ  being  destroyed  and  raced 
out,"  he  adds,  "Therefore  though  in  words  you 
denie  traditions,  yet  for  the  sprinkling  of  Infants 
you  have  no  better  Arguments." 

More  extended  experience  was  calculated  to  teach 
him  that  his  position  could  not  be  carried  by  storm 
in  this  fashion.  He  opened  his  fight  very  bravely; 
but  it  was  destined  to  be  a  longer  and  a  harder  fight 
than  he  apprehended.  Believers'  baptism  and  dip- 
ping had  both  been  too  long  extinct  in  England  to 
be  restored  on  the  spur  of  the  moment :  on  the  con- 
trary it  would  require  ages  of  patience  and  exertion 
to  restore  them.  But  the  matter  of  special  concern 
in  connection  with  his  pamphlet  is  that  he  confesses 
and  declares  without  any  qualification  whatsoever 
that  "the  Dipping  of  Christ  was  destroyed  and  raced 
out  hoth  for  matter  and  forme^  as  hath  beene  for- 
merly shewed,  the  matter  being  a  beleever  desiring 
it,  the  forme  dipping  them  into  Jesus  Christ." 
Whatever  quibbles  may  be  raised  about  other  ques- 
tions none  can  be  raised  about  this  one.  The  or- 
dinance was  extinct  in  England  in  1641,  if  Barber's 
authority  is  worth  anything  at  all,  and  if  the  plain- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  119 

est  statements  of  fact  are  capable  of  bein^  under- 
stood by  the  human  mind. 

As  was  intimated  above,  A.  R.,  was  the  second 
Baptist  author  who  appeared  in  defense  of  immer- 
sion in  the  baptismal  controversy  of  modern  ages. 
To  the  first  edition  of  the  Dippers  Dipt,  Dr.  Feat- 
ley  has  prefixed  a  letter  "To  my  Reverend  and  much 
esteemed  Friend,  Mr.  John  Downam,"  in  which  he 
sets  down  the  name  of  A.  R.  as  A.  Ritor.  I  have 
no  further  acquaintance  with  A.  Ritor;  but  this  in- 
formation, derived  from  a  contemporary,  is  worthy 
of  more  attention  than  has  been  bestowed  upon  it 
hitherto.  The  work  of  A.  R.  which  comes  under 
notice  in  this  place  is  entitled  :  The  Second  Part  of 
the  Yanity  and  Childishness  of  Infants  Baptisme. 
London,  1642.  On  page  29  of  this  Second  PaH^ 
Dr.  Dexter  has  found  the  following  quotation  which 
demonstrates  that  A.  R.  did  not  take  immersion  for 
granted:  "If  any  shall  thinke  it  strange  and  unlikely 
that  all  the  godliest  Divines  and  best  Churches 
should  be  thus  deceived  on  this  point  of  Baptisme 
for  so  many  yeares  together  [i.  e.,  as  never  before 
to  know  that  true  baptism  is  dipping  and  dipping 
alone  true  baptism]:  let  them  consider  that  all  Chris- 
tendome  (except  here  and  there  one,  or  some  few, 
or  no  considerable  number)  was  swallowed  up  in 
grosse  Popery  for  many  hundred  y.eares  before 
Luther's  time,  which  was  not  until  about  100  yeares 
agone."     (Dexter,  True  Story,  p.  49.) 


120  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Apparently  he  had  reference  to  the  general  ig- 
norance both  among  the  ministry  and  laity  "of  that 
glorious  principle  True  Baptisme  or  Dipping"  which 
Edward  Barber  had  remarked  upon.  That  ignorance 
is  conceded;  they  were  "deceived  on  this  point  of 
Baptisme"  for  the  reason  that  immersion  had  now 
become  extinct,  and  sprinkling  had  been  substituted 
in  the  place  of  it.  A.  R.  merely  endeavors  to  ex- 
plain the  process  by  which  such  an  unhappy  change 
had  been  brought  about.  He  does  not,  like  Edward 
Barber,  specify  the  exact  time  when  immersion  was 
again  introduced,  but  we  know  from  other  sources  that 
this  had  occurred  before  he  came  forth  with  his 
book  in  the  year  1642. 

Thomas  Kilcop,  one  of  the  brethren  who  sub- 
scribed the  Confession  of  faith  in  the  year  1644, 
published  A  Short  Treatise  of  Baptisme,  Wherein 
is  declared  that  only  Christ's  disciples  or  believers 
are  to  be  baptized,  etc.,  London,  1642.  The  ar- 
gument of  Praisegod  Barebone  to  the  effect  that 
they  lacked  a  Dipper  that  hath  authority  from  heaven 
as  had  John  the  Baptist,  arrested  the  attention  of 
Mr.  Kilcop  and  he  proceeded  to  answer  it  by  an  ex- 
cellent argumentum  ad  hominem  as  follows:  "Every 
Scripture  that  gives  you  warrant,  or  any  of  your 
judgement,  to  erect  a  Church  state,  gives  us  the  same 
warrant  to  erect  baptisme,  sith  the  one  can  not  be 
done  without  the  other,  for  none  can  put  on  Christ 
(that  is  visibly  by  outward  profession)  but  such  as 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  121 

:are  baptized  into  Christ,"  etc,  (Dexter,  True  Story, 
p.  48). 

One  of  our  moderns  would  have  denied  out  of 
hand  that  adult  immersion  had  ever  become  extinct 
in  England;  but  Mr.  Kilcop  knew  more  about  the 
matter.  He  conceded  that  point  without  any  ques- 
tion, and  argued  that  even  though  immersion  had 
become  extinct  the  Baptists  had  as  much  right  "to 
erect  baptisme"  as  the  Independents  had  "to  erect 
a  Church  state,"  It  would  be  impossible  for  a  man 
to  urge  an  argument  like  this,  who  took  immersion 
for  granted;  on  the  contrary,  that  was  the  very 
thing  he  did  not  take  for  granted.  Mr.  Kilcop  is  in 
exact  agreement  with  the  Jessey  Church  Records  in 
allowing  that  immersion  on  profession  of  faith  had 
become  extinct  in  England. 

Rev.  Henry  Denne  was  a  Baptist  minister  of  much 
learning  and  worship — our  pulpit  has  rarely  enjoyed 
a  more  worthy  ornament.  This  excellent  brother 
wrote  an  able  reply  to  Dr.  Featley  and  Mr.  Marshall 
under  the  following  title  :  Antichrist  Unmasked  in 
two  Treatises.  The  First  An  Answer  unto  two  Baedo- 
baptists,  Dan.  Featley,  D.D.,  and  Stephen  Mar- 
shall, B.D.  The  Arguments  for  Children's  Bap- 
tisme opened  and  answered.  The  Second,  The  man 
of  Sinne  discovered  in  Doctrine:  The  root  and 
foundation  of  Antichrist  laid  open.  By  Hen.  Denne. 
Printed  for  the  Edification  of  the  Church  and  Infor- 
mation of  the  world.      London,  1645.    (April  1st.) 


122  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Mr.  Denne's  testimony  is  as  follows:  "When  the 
Woman  cloathed  with  the  Sun  having  the  Moon  un- 
der her  feet  and  a  Crowne  of  twelve  Stars  upon  her 
head,  crjed  travailing  in  birth  ready  to  be  delivered, 
Behold  a  wonder  in  Heaven,  A  great  red  Dragon 
having  seven  heads  and  ten  homes,  and  seven 
crownes  upon  his  heads;  And  his  Tayle  drew  the 
third  part  of  the  stars  of  heaven  and  cast  them  to 
the  Earth:  And  the  Dragon  stood  before  the  woman 
which  was  ready  to  be  delivered  to  devour  her  childe 
when  she  had  brought  it  forth Our  own  ex- 
perience teacheth  us  in  these  our  dayes,  wherein  the 
shadowes  begin  to  vanish  and  the  night  to  passe 
away,  and  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  to  draw  neare 
unto  our  Horizon,  How  Many  adversaries  doe  now 
bestirre  themselves,  with  policy  and  force,  etc, 
Among  the  rest  the  Church  is  now  travail- 
ing ready  to  be  delivered  and  to  bring  forth  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Bajytisme  of  Water,  raked  up  here- 
tofore in  an  imitation  of  Pedobaptisme:  The  truth 
of  the  Ordinance  and  Institution  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
lying  covered  with  Custome  and  Practice  and  a  pre- 
tended Face  of  Antiquity"  pp.  1,  2. 

This  statement  made  in  April  164:5  "that  the  Church 
was  travailing  ready  to  bring  forth  the  doctrine  of  the- 
Baptisme  of  Water  "  agrees  admirably  with  the  dec- 
laration of  the  Jessey  Church  Records  that  immersion 
was  restored  to  England  first  in  1641.  That  Water 
Baptisme  had  been   "raked  up  heretofore  in  an  im- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  125- 

itation  of  Fedobaptisme"  amounts  to  a  concession 
that  the  baptism  employed  hitherto  by  Mr.  Denne's 
associates  had  been  an  imitation  of  the  rite  that  then 
prevailed  among  the  Pedo baptists,  which  rite  was 
pouring  and  sprinkling. 

Mr.  John  Mabbatt,  also  one  of  the  parties  who  sub- 
scribed the  Confession  of  Faith  in  1644,  undertook 
to  reply  to  the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  I.  Knutton,  entitled: 
Seven  Questions  about  the  Controversie  betweene- 
the  Church  of  England  and  the  Separatists  and  Ana- 
baptists, etc.,  London,  1644.  (Dexter,  True  Story, 
p.  89.)  In  that  place  (p.  23)  Mr.  Knutton  had  said 
"this  opinion  [of  rebaptizing  by  dipping]  being  but 
7iew  and  upstart^  there  is  good  reason  they  should 
disclairae  it  and  be  humbled  for  it."  Dexter,  True 
Story,  p.  50.)  No  finer  opportunity  was  ever  pre- 
sented to  deny  a  charge  with  indignation  if  it  had 
been  untrue.  Mr.  Mabbatt  wrote  "A  Brief e  or  Gen- 
erall  Reply  unto  Mr.  Knutton's  Answers  unto  the 
YII.  Questions,"  etc.,  London,  1645  (Dexter,  True 
Story,  p.  90),  in  which,  on  p.  22,  he  not  only  fails- 
to  deny,  but  actually  concedes  the  correctness  of  the 
allegation,  and  defends  himself  by  saying:  "The 
Apostles  were  in  their  time  charged  for  'new  and 
upstart'  Doctrine  by  some;  should  they  by  good  rea- 
son therefore  disclayme  it,  and  be  humbled  for  it, 
and  so  have  denyed  Christ's  doctrine  and  Truth,  "^ 
etc.  (Dexter,  True  Story,  p.  50.)  Mr.  Mabbatt  is 
here  in  agreement  with  the  Jessey  Church  Records- 


124  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

to  the  effect  that  none  had  practiced  immersion  be- 
fore 1641,  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  him 
to  offer  this  reply  if  he  had  known  that  believers' 
immersion  had  never  become  extinct  in  England. 
He  concedes  that  point  without  discussion. 

When  the  great  change  from  pouring  and  sprin- 
kling to  immersion  was  about  to  be  introduced  three 
parties  were  formed  in  England.  Crosby  says  one 
of  these  believed  "that  the  first  administrator  should 
baptize  himself  and  then  proceed  to  the  baptizing  of 
others.  Others  were  for  sending  to  those  foreign 
Protestants  that  had  used  immersion  for  some  time, 
that  so  they  might  receive  it  from  them.  And  others 
again  thought  it  not  necessary  to  baptism  that  the 
administrator  be  himself  baptized  at  least  in  an  ex- 
traordinary case;  but  that  whoever  saw  such  a  refor- 
mation necessary,  might  from  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture lawfully  begin  it."  (Crosby,  vol.  1,  p.  97.) 
This  latter  party  is  claimed  to  have  comprised  the 
greatest  number  and  the  more  judicious  of  the  peo- 
ple concerned.      (Crosby,  vol.  1,  p.  103.) 

That  sort  of  party  alignment  would  be  inexplicable 
except  upon  the  ground  that  immersion,  which  had 
been  in  disuse  in  England  was  brought  forward  again 
about  1641.  It  consitutes  one  of  the  numerous 
monuments  of  the  change  from  pouring  to  dipping. 
Mr.  John  Spilsbury  stood  at  the  head  of  this  third 
and  largest  party.  His  judgment  as  set  forth  in  the 
title  of  one  of  his  books  (Dexter,  True  Story,  p.  95) 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  125 

was  tliat  "the  Covenant,  not  Baptism,  forms  the 
Church,"  namely,  that  persons  who  have  entered 
into  a  church  covenant  acquire  ijMo  facto  a  right  to 
perform  and  enjoy  every  ordinance;  or  that  when 
the  ordinances  are  kicking  they  may  always  be  re- 
stored by  the  mere  process  of  setting  up  a  church 
covenant,  since  "God's  ordinance  is  the  saint's  privi- 
lege." 

Mr.  Praisegod  Barebone  delivered  an  assault 
against  that  position  in  a  pamphlet  styled  A  De- 
fense of  the  Lawfulnesse  of  Baptizing  Infants,  in 
answer  to  Something  by  John  Spilsberie  against  the 
same.  By  P.  B.  London,  1644  (Gould,  Introduc- 
tion, p.  cxviii).  In  that  place  he  says  of  Mr.  Spils- 
bury:  "He  holds  that  a  church  maybe  Christ's  with- 
out Baptism,  as  in  his  Book  may  be  seen,"  and  de- 
sires him  to  prove  "that  ever  any  unbaptized  person 
after  Baptisme  was  afoot  in  the  world  baptized  or 

was  authorized  for  to  do  it And  lastly  whether 

his  practice  of  raising  and  beginning  the  Church  of 
unbaptized  persons,  do  agree  with  the  primitive 
practice  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  that  began  the 
church  of  baptized  matter  as  before."  (Gould,  pp. 
cxviii-cxix.) 

If  immersion  had  always  been  in  vogue  in  Eng- 
land Spilsbury  could  have  resented  these  charges;  but 
he  takes  no  such  position.  He  tacitly  concedes  the 
point  that  he  himself,  who  was  now  one  of  the  foremost 
leaders    of    English    Baptists,  was    unbaptized   and 


126  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

makes  an  argument  to  prove  "that  baptizednesse  is 
not  essential  to  an  Administrator."  (Gould,  p.  cxix.) 
That  position  would  have  been  out  of  the  question 
for  a  man  who  was  all  the  while  taking  immersion  for 
granted.  On  the  contrary  he  knew  that  immersion 
was  only  recently  adopted  in  England  ;  and  that  he 
himself  had  never  received  it,  though  he  was  daily 
immersing  other  people. 

Mr.  John  Tombes,  the  most  learned  and  able 
Baptist  scholar  of  that  generation,  was  one  of  the 
leading  defenders  of  the  position  assumed  by  Spils- 
bury  and  his  followers,  to  the  effect  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  fetch  immersion  from  Holland  but  that 
"whoever  saw  such  a  reformation  necessary,  might 
from  the  authority  of  Scripture  lawfully  begin  it." 
He  says  in  An  Addition  to  the  Apology  for  two 
Treatises,  1652,  p.  10  :  "If  no  continuance  of  adult 
baptism  can  be  proved,  and  baptism  by  such  persons 
is  wanting,  yet  I  conceive  what  many  Protestant 
writers  do  yield  when  they  are  pressed  by  the  Papists 
to  show  the  calling  of  the  first  reformers  ;  that  after 
an  universal  corruption^  the  necessity  of  the  thing 
doth  justify  the  persons  that  reform,  though  wanting 
an  ordinary  regular  calling  ;  will  justify  in  such  a 
case  both  the  lawfulness  of  the  minister's  baptizing 
that  hath  not  been  rightly  baptized  himself,  and  the 
sufficiency  of  that  baptism  to  the  person  so  bap- 
tized." (Crosby,  vol.  1,  pp.  104-5).  Mr.  Tombes 
•does  not  take  immersion  for  granted.     He  concedes 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  127 

an  universal  corruption  such  as  existed  before  1641, 
when  adult  immersion  was  not  yet  restored  in  Eng- 
land, and  is  in  agreement  with  the  facts  as  set  forth 
on  that  point  by  the  Jessey  Church  Records. 

The  above  citations  constitute  a  sevenfold  cord  of 
Baptist  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  immersion  of 
believers  had  become  extinct  in  England  before  the 
year  1640,  and  that  it  was  introduced  again  in  the 
year  1641.  It  is  not  the  testimony  of  enemies  but 
the  witness  of  friends  who  were  on  the  spot,  and 
doing  what  they  could  to  promote  the  Baptist  inter- 
est. Some  of  them  had  great  learning,  and  all  had 
•exact  information.  If  we  cannot  trust  them  about  a 
matter  of  contemporary  fact  it  is  useless  to  prosecute 
historical  investigations  of  any  sort.  We  may  as 
well  close  the  books,  and  proceed  to  evolve  our  his- 
torical conclusions  entirely  from  our  own  concious- 
ness  without  any  reference  to  the  events  that  have 
taken  place  in  the  world. 


128  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


X. 

SOME    OUTSIDE   WITNESSES. 

TO  MY  thinking  the  argument  is  now  complete 
and  conclusive  without  the  addition  of  another 
word.  But  there  are  certain  witnesses  standing  out- 
side of  Baptist  circles  who  are  entitled  to  be  heard. 
It  is  conceded  that  they  have  their  prejudices  and 
limitations;  but  they  were  eyewitnesses,  men  of 
ability  and  learning,  and  very  capable  of  confirming 
truth  that  has  been  abundantly  established  by  other 
testimony.  One  of  these  is  Dr.  Daniel  Featley, 
whose  testimony  has  already  been  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed in  a  previous  chapter  to  which  the  reader  is 
respectfully  referred.  His  book  entitled  The  Dip- 
pers Dipt  clearly  shows  that  adult  immersion  was  a 
new  practice  in  England  when  it  was  published  in 

164:4:. 

Another  author  is  Robert  Baillie,  the  full  title  of 
whose  work  is  as  follows:  Anabaptism  the  True 
Fountaine  of  Independency,  Brownisme,  Antinomy 
Familisme.  And  most  of  the  other  Errors  which 
for  the  time  doe  trouble  the  Church  of  England  Un- 
sealed. Also  the  Questions  of  Pedobaptisme  or 
Dipping  Handled  from  Scripture.  In  a  Second  Fart 
of  The  Dissuasive  from  the  Errors  of    the   Time. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  129 

By  Robert  Baillie,  Minister  at  Glasgow.  London, 
January  4,  1646.  On  page  163  of  the  above  work 
Mr.  Baillie  says  :  "The  pressing  of  dipping  and  the 
exploding  of  sprinkling  is  but  an  yesterday  conceit  oi 
the  .English  Anabaptists.  Among  the  new  inven- 
tions of  the  late  Anabaptists  there  is  none  which 
with  greater  animosity  they  set  on  foot  then  the  ne- 
cessity of  dipping  over  head  and  ears  ;  then  the  nul- 
lity of  aft'usion  and  sprinkling  in  the  administration 
of  baptisme.  Among  the  old  Anabaptists,  or  those 
over  sea,  to  this  day  so  far  as  I  can  learn  by  their 
writings,  or  any  relation  that  yet  has  come  to  my 
Ears,  the  question  of  dipping  and  sprinkling  never 
came  upon  the  Table.  As  I  take  it  they  dip  none, 
but  all  whom  they  baptize  they  sprinkle  in  the  same 
Manner  as  is  our  custome.  The  question  about  the 
necessity  of  dipping  seems  to  be  taken  up  onely  the 
other  year  by  the  Anabaptists  of  England,  as  a  point 
which  alone  as  they  conceive  is  able  to  carry  their 
desire  of  exterminating  infant  baptisme:  for  they 
know  that  parents  upon  no  consideration  will  be  con- 
tent to  hazard  the  life  of  their  tender  infants  by 
plunging  them  over  head  and  ears  into  a  cold  river. 
Let  us  therefore  consider  if  this  sparkle  of  new  light 
have  any  derivation  from  the  lamp  of  the  Sanctuary, 
or  the  Sun  of  righteousnesse;  if  it  be  according  to 
Scripturall  truth  or  any  good  reason." 

Baillie  in   the   above  passage  expressly  declares 
that  dipping  was   "a  new  invention  of  the  late  Ana- 


130  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

'baptists,''''  '•'•an  yesterday  conceit  of  tlie  Eriglish 
Anabaptists,^''  ^ '•taken  up  onely  the  other  year,'''' 
'•^a  sparkle  of  new  light.''''  He  does  not  indicate 
the  precise  year  in  which  it  was  introduced,  but 
these  expressions  agree  to  a  nicety  with  the  po- 
sition that  this  event  took  place  only  about  five  years 
before  he  published  his  book.  Every  word  of  his 
testimony  confirms  the  deliverance  of  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  to  the  effect  that  prior  to  the  year 
IGIO  "none  had  so  practiced  in  England  to  pro- 
fessed believers,"  while  in  the  year  1641  the  change 
from  pouring  and  sprinkling  to  immersion  was  duly 
inaugurated. 

Attention  is  once  again  cited  to  the  fact  that  Prof. 
Scheffer,  the  latest  and  most  eminent  authority  in 
this  department,  is  very  largely  on  the  side  of  Baillie 
when  he  affirms  that  the  ancient  Anabaptists  laid  no 
stress  npon  immersion,  while  those  over  sea  at  the 
time  when  he  wrote  did  not  use  dipping,  but  sprin- 
kled all  whom  they  baptized.  Of  course,  it  is  to  be 
expected  that  efforts  will  be  made  to  discredit  the 
testimony  of  Baillie,  but  they  can  not  avail.  He 
will  always  stand  as  a  clear  and  consistent  witness 
on  this  point. 

The  work  of  Ephraim  Pagitt  may  be  cited  next, 
viz.,  Heresiography,  or  a  description  of  the  Here- 
ticks  and  Sectaries  of  these  latter  times,  London, 
1645.  After  describing  many  other  kinds  of  Ana- 
baptists, Pagitt  comes  at  length  to  speak  of  the  new- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  131 

est  sort,  namely,  the  "Plunged  Anabaptists."  He 
says:  "Yea  at  this  day  they  have  a  neiv  crochet 
come  into  their  heads,  that  all  that  have  not  been 
plunged  nor  dipt  under  water,  are  not  truly  bap- 
tized, and  these  also  they  rebaptize:  And  this  their 
error  ariseth  from  ignorance  of  the  Greek  word 
Baptize  which  signifieth  no  more  then  washing  or 
ablution,  as  Hesychus,  Stephanus,  Scapulae,  Budeus, 
great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue,  make  good  by 
many  instances  and  allegations  out  of  many  au- 
thors, "(p.  30). 

Certainly  it  is  not  possible  to  affirm  of  Pagittthat 
he  had  never  heard  of  the  change  from  sprinkling 
to  immersion,  for  he  represents  the  "Plunged  Ana- 
baptists" as  being  a  new  sort  of  Anabaptists,  and 
refers  in  unmistakable  language  to  the  '"'•new  crocliet^ 
come  into  their  heads,  that  all  that  have  not  been 
plunged  nor  dipt  under  water  are  not  truly  bap- 
tized." If  this  language  does  not  convey  the  idea 
that  immersion  had  been  only  recently  introduced 
when  his  book  appeared  in  1645,  it  would  appear  to 
be  impossible  to  convey  an  idea  of  that  kind  by 
means  of  human   speech. 

The  last  witness  to  be  presented  here  is  William 
Cooke,  and  the  title  of  his  book  is  "A  Learned  and 
Full  Answer  to  a  Treatise  intitled  The  Yanity  of 
Childish  Baptisme.  Wherein  the  severall  Argu- 
ments brought  to  overthrow  the  lawful nesse  of  In- 
fants' Baptisme,  together  with  the  Answers  to  those 


132  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Arguments  maintaining  its  unlawfulnesse  are  duly 
examined.  As  also  The  question  concerning  the  ne- 
cessitie  of  dipping  in  Baptisme  is  fully  discussed. 
By  William  Cooke,  Minister  of  the  Word  of  God  at 
Wroxall  in  Warwickshire,  London,  1644.  In  this 
work  the  author  says:  "Fourthly,  will  not  this  their 
manner  of  dipping  be  found  also  against  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment  in  the  Decalogue?  For  I  would 
know  with  these  new  dippers  whether  the  parties  to 
be  dowsed  and  dipped  may  be  baptized  in  a  garment 
or  no?  If  they  may  then  happily  the  garment  may 
keep  the  water  from  some  part  of  the  body,  and 
then  they  are  not  rightly  baptized;  for  the  whole 
man,  say  they,  must  be  dipped.  Againe,  I  would 
aske  what  warrant  they  have  for  dipping  or  baptiz- 
ing garments,  more  than  the  Papists  have  for  bap- 
tizing Bells?  Therefore  belike  the  parties  must  be 
naked  and  Multitudes  present  as  at  John's  baptisme, 
and  the  parties  men  and  women  of  -ripe  yeares,  as 
being  able  to  make  a  confession  of  their  faith  and 
repentance,"  etc.,  (pp.  21  and  22). 

There  can  be  no  kind  of  question  that  Mr.  Cooke 
had  heard  of  the  recent  change  from  sprinkling  to 
immersion.  Everything  that  he  brings  forward 
only  serves  to  indicate  that  it  was  still  new  and  un- 
settled. In  the  year  1644,  when  he  wrote  his  book, 
questions  about  the  clothing  required  in  immersion, 
had  to  be  debated  and  disposed  of,  which  have  never 
been  mooted  among  our  people  at  a  later  time.   Mr. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  133 

Cooke  not  only  refers  to  some  of  these,  but  he  ex- 
pressly calls  the  parties  "nei/;  dippers.''^ 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  body  of  materials,  I  can- 
didly consider  that  my  proofs  are  sufficient.  This 
opinion  has  been  confirmed  and  strengthened  by  the 
renewed  investigations  which  I  have  lately  under- 
taken in  order  to  set  forth  these  proofs.  Whatever 
else  may  be  true  in  history,  I  believe  it  is  beyond 
question  that  the  practice  of  adult  immersion  was  in- 
troduced anew  into  England  in  the  year  1641.  That 
conclusion  must  be  recognized  more  and  more  by 
scholars  who  will  take  pains  to  weigh  the  facts  pre- 
sented in  the  above  discussion.  It  is  sure  to  be- 
come one  of  the  commonplaces  of  our  Baptist  teach- 
ing, and  in  the  course  of  time  men  will  be  found  to 
wonder  how  any  could  ever  have  opposed  it.  Few 
other  facts  of  history  are  capable  of  more  convinc- 
ing demonstration.  Doubts  have  been  cast  upon 
the  historical  existence  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon  I. 
Doubts  may  be  cast  upon  any  event  that  ever  oc- 
curred among  men;  but  the  vast  majority  of  people 
will  disregard  these  doubts  and  accept  the  deliver- 
ances of  history  when  they  are  once  sufficiently 
proven. 


134  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 


XI. 

FOR   GOOD   MEASURE. 

THE  merits  of  Dr.  H.  M.  Dexter  in  promoting  the 
recent  progress  in  church  history  have  already 
been  acknowledged.  As  an  antiquarian  our  country 
has  produced  few  scholars  who  could  surpass  him. 
His  industry  was  commendable,  and  wide  experience 
had  conferred  extraordinary  skill.  Whoever  shall 
be  at  pains  to  follow  him  to  his  sources  will  find  that 
he  is  also  a  careful  and  painstaking  workman. 

Dr.  Dexter  was  engaged  in  the  labor  of  investiga- 
tion at  the  British  Museum  and  other  libraries  dur- 
ing a  portion  of  the  winter  of  1880-1,  and  was 
enabled  to  find  a  number  of  authorities  which  no 
previous  student  had  brought  to  light.  Those  which 
he  has  the  sole  credit  of  discovering  will  be  thrown  to- 
gether at  this  place  to  swell  the  volume  of  proof  that 
immersion  was  introduced  into  England  about  the 
year  1611. 

The  first  of  these  belongs  to  the  year  1641  and  is 
entitled  The  New  Distemper,  written  by  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Loyal  1  Convert.  Dr.  Dexter,  who 
appears  to  be  the  only  person  that  has  examined  this 
pamphlet,  reports  that  "the  whole  book  takes  its 
name  as  an  attack  upon  the  'prophanations'  of  these 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  135 

dippers."  (True  Story,  p.  50,  with  note.)  Dipping 
being  for  the  author  a  '•''new  distemper'^''  it  is  manifest 
that  he  did  not  take  it  for  granted,  but  was  perfectly 
aware  of  the  change  from  pouring  or  sprinkling  to 
immersion  which  took  place  in  the  year  1641. 

The  quotations  from  I.  Knutton  and  John  Mabbatt 
found  on  the  same  page  were  instanced  in  another 
place  and  set  down  to  the  credit  of  Dr.  Dexter.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Mabbatt  was  a  Baptist 
witness.  The  same  remark  applies  to  R.  J.,  the 
author  of  Nineteen  Arguments  proving  Circum- 
cision no  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace The 

Unlawfullnesse  of  Infant  Baptisme,  etc.,  London, 
1645.  On  page  4  of  that  pamplilet  this  Baptist 
writer  speaks  of  "the  new  Ordinance  of  Dipping," 
(True  Story,  p.  50),  showing  that  he  did  not  take 
immersion  for  granted,  and  that  he  was  perfectly 
aware  of  the  change  that  had  occurred  in  the  year 
1641. 

Dr.  Dexter  also  brings  forward  the  performance  of 
J.  Saltmarsh  entitled  The  Smoke  in  the  Temple. 
Wherein  is  a  Design  for  Peace  and  Reconciliation  of 
Believers  of  the  several  Opinions  of  these  Times 
about  Ordinances,  to  a  Forbearance  of  each  other  in 
Love  and  Meeknesse  and  Humility,  etc.  London, 
1645.      Mr.    Saltmarsh  here,   pp.  15,  16,   speaks  of 

"the  dipping  them  in  the  water as  the  new 

baptism,"  (True  Story,  p.  50),  showing  that  he  was 
entirely  aware  of  the  recent  change  from  pouring 
and  sprinkling  to  immersion. 


136  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

The  above  work  received  two  replies  from  Baptist 
authors,  one  of  which  has  not  been  mentioned  by 
Dexter  in  this  connection.  It  was  written  by  Rev. 
'Daniel  King,  "Preacher  of  the  Word  near  Cov- 
entry," and  bears  the  following  title:  A  Way  in 
Zion,  sought  out  and  found,  for  Beleevers  to  walk 
in.  Or  a  Treatise  consisting  of  Three  Parts.  In  the 
first  is  proved,  1.  That  God  hath  had  a  people  on 
the  Earth,  ever  since  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the 
flesh,  throughout  the  darkest  times  of  Popery,  which 
he  hath  owned  as  Saints  and  as  his  Church.  2.  That 
these  Saints  have  power  to  reassume  and  take  up  as 
their  right  atiy  ordinance  of  Christ,  which  they  have 
heen  deprived  of  hy  the  violence  and  tyranny  of  the 
man  of  Sin.  Wherein  is  cleared  up  by  Scripture 
and  arguments  grounded  upon  Scripture,  who  of 
right  may  administer  Ordinances,  and  amongst  the 
rest  the  Ordinance  of  Baptism  with  water.  The  II. 
Part  containeth  a  full  and  large  Answer  to  13  Ex- 
ceptions against  the  practice  of  baptizing  believers, 
wherein  the  former  particulars  are  more  fully  cleared 
up,  etc.     London,  1650.     (Ivimey,  History  2,  577.) 

The  power  of  the  Saints  "to  reassume  and  take  up 
as  their  right  any  ordinance  of  Christ  which  they 
have  been  deprived  of  by  the  violence  and  tyranny 
of  the  man  of  Sin,"  points  very  naturally  to  the  in- 
troduction of  immersion  after  the  long  season  dur- 
ing which  that  rite  had  fallen  into  desuetude  in 
England. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  137 

The  other  work  in  reply  to  Mr.  Saltmarsh  was  by 
Hev,  H.  Knollys,  the  title  of  which,  according  to 
-Crosby,  History,  1,  343,  is  as  follows  :  The  Shining 
of  a  flaming  fire  in  Zion  ;  an  Answer  to  Mr,  Saltmarsh 
his  thirteen  exceptions  against  the  grounds  of  the 
■Qiew  hajptism  in  his  book  entitled  the  Smoke  of  the 
Temple,  1646.  On  page  1  of  this  volume  Mr. 
Knollys  comes  to  speak  of  the  new  baptism  and  in- 
stead of  denying  the  allegation  he  merely  retorts 
that  "Paul's  doctrine  was  called  'new,'  although  he 
preached  Jesus  and  the  Resurrection"  (True  Story, 
p.  50),  by  which  he  appears  to  concede  that  immer- 
sion was  new  as  charged  by  Saltmarsh,  and  yet 
though  it  liad  been  extinct  for  a  long  while  in  Eng- 
land it  had  nevertheless  been  a  command  and  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era.  In  that  sense  at  any  rate  it  was  not  new — an 
-eminently  true  and  proper  conclusion. 

The  next  witness  is  J.  Eachard  in  The  Axe 
.against  Sin  and  Error  and  the  Truth  conquering, 
etc.,  London,  1645,  where  on  page  8  he  says  :    "the 

Anabaptistes  by  a  new  baptisme will  not 

communicate  with  others  for  they  think  they  are 
more  holy  than  others,  by  strictnesse  of  their  order," 
etc.  (True  Story,  p.  50.)  This  '-^new  haptisme''' 
•could  not  have  been  believers'  baptism  for  the  sprin- 
kling of  believers  was  among  the  Anabaptists  already 
XI  very  old  baptism  ;  it  could  have  been  nothing  but  im- 
mersion which  so  many  authorities  combine  to  assert 


138  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

was  introduced  again  in  1641,  and  in  the  year  1645 
was  still  a  new  affair.  Mr.  Eachard  was  almost  be- 
yond question  aware  of  the  change  from  sprinkling 
to  dipping. 

N.  Stephens  supplies  the  next  citation  from  his 
pamphlet  entitled  A  Precept  for  the  Baptisme  of 
Infants  out  of  the  New  Testament,  etc.,  London, 
1650,  where  on  p.  65  he  argues :  "If  they  (the  Ana- 
baptists) say  that  the  Commission,  Matt.  xxviii:19, 
was  their  first  Administrator's  rule,  then  he  must  be 
a  Disciple  made  by  ordinary  preaching  and  teaching 
before  he  had  authority  to  minister  their  new  Bap- 
tisme." (True  Story,  p.  51.)  Here  is  a  distinct  ref- 
erence to  the  change  which  has  been  pointed  out  and 
emphasized  as  having  occurred  in  the  year  1641. 

Rev.  John  Goodwin  is  a  voluminous  and  circum- 
stantial witness.  The  first  work  in  which  he  treats 
this  subject  is  Philadelphia  :  or  XL  Queries  for  the 
discovery  of  truth  in  this  question  ;  Whether  per- 
sons baptized  after  a  profession  of  faith  may  hold 
communion  with  churches baptized  in  in- 
fancy? London,  1653.  In  this  performance  occur 
the  following  expressions:  "the  brethren  of  new 
Baptisme;"  "the  way  of  ^i^et^  Baptisme  ;"  "surprised 
with  a  religious  conceit  of  the  necessity  of  new  Bap- 
tisme ;"  "the  children  of  nev:!  Baptisme."  Pp.  13, 
24,  25,  28.      (True  Story,  p.  51.) 

The  connection  of  history  indicates  pretty  clearly 
that  this  new  hajptism  could  have  been  nothing  else 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY  139 

than  immersion  ;  but  in  his  next  volume  the  author 
expresses  himself  in  terms  that  it  is  almost  impos- 
sible to  misapprehend.  That  volume  is  entitled 
Water  Dipping  no  Firm  Footing  for  Church  Com- 
munion, London,  1653,  from  which  Dr.  Dexter 
has  drawn  such  quotations  as  these:  "not  simply 
lawful,  but  necessary  also  (in  point  of  duty)  for  per- 
sons baptized  after  the  new  mode  of  Dipping^  to  con- 
tinue   communion    with    those    churches of 

which  they  were  members  before  the  said  Dipping;" 
"the  neio  mode  of  Dipping  ;"  being  actually  baptized 
after  the  manner  of  brethren  of  new  Baptism  \  "the 
main  Pillar  upon  which  the  house  of  our  new  Dip- 
pers of  men  and  dividers  of  Churches  is  built  ;"  "I 
heartily  wish  for  some  of  them,  whom  I  know,  that 
their  new  Baptism  doth  not  help  to  diminish  their 
old  grace;"  and  "for  the   Mode  of  the  latest  and 

newest  Invention" "it  is,  as  far  as  we  are  able 

to  conceive  by  the  representation  of  it  made  unto 
some  of  us,  so  contrived  and  so  managed  that  the 
Baptist  who  dippeth  according  to  it  had  need  to  be 
a  man  of  stout  limbs,  and  of  a  very  able  and  active 
body:  otherwise  the  person  to  be  baptized,  especially 
if  in  any  degree  corpulent,  or  unwieldy,  runs  a  great 
hazard  of  meeting  with  Christ's  latter  Baptism,  in- 
stead of  his  former;"  "persons  baptized  after  the  new 
mode  of  dipping."  Pp.  1,  5,  11,  26,  39,  89.  (True 
Story,  p.  51.) 

It  would  be  a  difficult  task  to  explain  away  several. 


140  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

■of  these  statements  and  represent  them  as  meaning 
something  else  than  what  plainly  appears  on  the 
face  of  them.  They  declare  in  unmistakable  lan- 
guage that  in  the  year  1653  dipping  was  still  re- 
garded as  a  new  mode  of  administering  baptism, 
and  human  ingenuity  will  be  as  much  taxed  to  find 
out  some  other  meaning,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ex- 
tracts from  Mr.  Fraisegod  Barebone.  These  as  well 
as  those,  however,  will  continue  to  convey  the  mean- 
ing which  is  obvious  on  the  face  of  them. 

Mr.  Goodwin  refers  to  the  subject  once  more  in 
'■'-Cata- Baptism  or  New  Baptism  waxing  old,  an 
Answer  to  W.  A.,"  etc.,  London,  1655,  where  he 
speaks  of  "your  new  baptism;"  '•'-after  the  neio  mode 
of  dipping-^''  "Mr.  W.  A.  himself  in  his'  Answer' 
maketh  it  matter  of  exception  and  complaint,  that  I 
sometimes  stile  his  way  of  Rebaptizing  New  Bap- 
tism. And  yet  heretofore  in  discussing  with  a  grave 
Minister  of  Mr.  A. 's  judgement  in  the  point  of  Re- 
baptizing,  and  the  most  ancient  that  I  know  walking 
in  that  way,  finding  him  not  so  well  satisfied  that 
his  way  should  be  stiled  Anabaptism,  I  desired  to 
know  of  him  what  other  term  would  please  him? 
His  answer  was  ^New  Baptism  f''  Pp.  vi,  xxx, 
xxxii.    (True  Story,  p.  51.) 

The  thing  that  was  unusual  about  this  baptism 
was  the  ^'•new  mode  hy  dipping.''''  That  is  so  mani- 
fest as  to  require  no  further  explanation.  Goodwin 
-can  by  no  possibility  be  claimed  as  teaching  any- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  Ul>. 

thing  else  than  the  plain  facts  that  a  change  had 
occurred  but  recently  in  the  mode  of  baptism,  and 
that  the  new  mode  was  by  dipping.  Nowhere  does 
he  take  immersion  for  granted;  he  is  quite  as  defi- 
nite as  Mr.  Praisegod  Barebone  in  his  assertion  that 
dipping  was  the  new  mode. 

J.  Parnell  is  another  witness,  who  in  The 
"Watcher;  or  the  Stone  cut  out  of  the  Mountain, 
etc.,   London,    1655,   p.    16,   testifies:    "now  within 

these  late  yeares they  (the  Anabaptists)  say 

they  must  be  dipped  in  the  water,  and  that 

they  call  baptizing."     (True  Story,  p.  51.) 

It  would  be  a  marvelous  feat  to  represent  that 
Parnell  in  this  work,  published  fourteen  years  after 
the  introduction  of  immersion,  had  never  heard  of 
the  change  from  pouring  and  sprinkling.  Only 
"within  these  late  yeares"  had  that  change  occurred, 
and  it  was  perfectly  fresh  in  the  memory  of  all  who 
lived  in  those  times  and  had  ever  been  conversant 
with  the  facts  in  question. 

The  next  man  is  J.  Watts,  whose  work  is  enti- 
tled: A  Scribe,  Pharisee,  Hypocrite  and  his  Let- 
ter answered.  Separates  churched.  Dippers  Sprin- 
kled, or  a  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  universities 
of  England,  etc whereunto  is  added  A  nar- 
ration of  a  publick  dipping,  June  26,  1656,  in  a 
pond,  etc.  London,  1657.  On  page  iii  of  the 
preface  he  says:  "Dipping  was,  and  is,  as  I  have 
said,  a  JVew  business,  and  a  very  JVovelty.''''  (True- 
Story,  p.  51.) 


142  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

By  the  year  1690  a  new  generation  bad  appeared 
on  the  scene;  most  of  the  eye  witnesses  of  the  events 
of  1641  had  now  passed  away.  Mr.  Thomas  Wall 
then  came  forward  with  a  work  entitled  Baptism 
Anatomized:  being  Propounded  in  five  Queries, 
viz.:  (1)  What  Water  Baptism  is  ?  (2)  What  is  the 
end  for  which  it  is  instituted  ?  (3)  What  giveth 
right  to  it?  (1)  Who  are  the  true  administrators  of 
it  ?  (5)  Whether  it  be  lawful  for  a  man  to  baptize 
himself '(  London,  1690.  As  a  child  of  the  second 
generation,  Wall  fell  into  certain  grotesque  blunders, 
and  "mentions  a  rumor  which  he  had  heard  some 
years  before  in  London  that  Spilsbury  visited  Hol- 
land to  be  baptized  of  Smyth."  This  ignorant  as- 
sertion was  very  distasteful  to  the  Baptists  of  that 
period  who  knew  that  Mr.  Spilsbury  did  not  care 
enough  for  succession  in  immersion  to  turn  on  his 
heel  to  obtain  it,  to  say  nothing  of  making  a  jour- 
ney to  Holland;  that  Smyth  was  not  an  immersion- 
ist  and  hence  could  not  have  bestowed  what  he  did 
not  possess  ;  and  that  he  died  in  August,  1612, 
which  was  at  least  twenty-three  years  before  Spils- 
bury comes  upon  the  scene. 

Accordingly  Mr.  Hercules  Collins,  one  of  the 
foremost  Baptist  pastors  of  the  day,  wrote  a. work 
entitled  Believers-Baptism  from  Heaven,  and  of 
Divine  institution;  Infants-Baptism  from  earth  and 
human  invention.  Proved  from  the  Commission  of 
Christ,  etc.,  with   a  Brief   yet  sufficient  Answer  to 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  143 

T.  Wall's  book  called  "Baptism  Anatomized,"  Lon- 
dan,  1690,  On  page  115  of  thi^  volume  Mr.  Collins 
says:   "Could  not  the  Ordinance  of  Christ  vjhichwas 

lost  in  the  apostasy  he  revived unless  in  such 

a  filthy  way  as  you  falsly  assert,  viz:,  that  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists  received  their  Baptism  from  Mr.  John 
Smyth  ?  It  is  absolutely  untrue,  it  being  well  known 
by  some  yet  alive  how  false  this  assertion  is."  (True 
Story,  p.  44,  note.) 

This  Baptist  minister  here  concedes  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ  had  been  "lost  in  the  apostasy"  and 
that  it  had  been  "revived."  His  position  is  in  sub- 
stance the  same  as  that  of  Edward  Barber,  who  in 
1611  declared  that  the  ordinance  had  been  "de- 
stroyed and  raced  out  both  for  matter  and  forme" 
and  tliat  he  had  been  raised  up  to  "devulge"  it  "to 
the  world's  Censuring."  Mr.  Collins  stood  at  the 
turn  of  the  seventeenth  century,  having  passed  away 
in  the  year  1702,  sixty-one  years  after  the  introduc- 
tion of  immersion  among  his  people,  and  yet  the 
facts  were  still  well  known  to  him  and  he  without 
embarrassment  conceded  the  loss  of  immersion  and 
its  revival  in  England. 

Throughout  this  discussion  it  must  have  become 
apparent  to  all  how  the  testimony  of  Baptist  authors 
who  were  eyewitnesses  of  the  events  coincides  with 
that  of  authors  of  other  Denominations  regarding 
the  point  in- question.  They  have  no  hesitation  in 
confessing  the  facts  of  the  case  ;  they  make  no  efforts 


144  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

to  conceal  or  misrepresent  them.  It  would  be  an  in- 
teresting item  in  the'further  progress  of  this  discus- 
sion if  a  competent  scholar  should  find  out  the  ear- 
liest date  when  Baptist  writers  began  to  be  dubious 
of  this  notable  transaction,  and  should  bring  forward 
the  details  of  the  process  by  which  it  gradually  be- 
came customary  to  ignore,  and  at  last  to  deny  the 
great  event  that  occurred  among  our  people  in  the 
"yeare  of  jubilee." 

I  believe  that  I  may  now  safely  leave  my  cause  in 
the  hands  of  candid  readers.  Every  fact  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  position  that  believers'  immersion, 
after  it  had  been  sometime  disused,  was  introduced 
into  England  again  in  1641,  Immersion  had  not  been 
practiced  for  a  lengthy  season  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; it  was  unknown  among  the  Anabaptists  of  Eng- 
land, who  had  all  come  over  from  Holland  in  the  six- 
teenth century  ;  it  was  not  practiced  by  the  Men- 
nonites  or  by  the  followers  of  John  Smyth,  Thomas 
Helwys  and  John  Murton  ;  it  was  introduced,  ac- 
cording to  the  Jessey  Church  Records,  in  161:1  by 
two  companies,  one  of  which  belonged  to  the  Jessey 
Church  and  the  other  to  the  Church  of  Mr.  Spils- 
bury  ;  the  monuments  of  the  change  from  sprinkling 
and  pouring  to  immersion  are  very  numerous,  and 
some  of  them  (as  for  instance  the  name  Baptist)  are 
very  well  known  ;  it  was  testified  to  almost  imme- 
diately by  Mr.  Praisegod  Barebone,  a  highly  compe- 
tent witness,  who  stood  so  close  to  the  Baptists  that 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  145 

he  is  claimed  as  a  Baptist  minister  by  so  good  an 
authority  as  the  Baptist  Encyclopaedia ;  the  fact  is 
likewise  aflSrmed  by  the  Baptist  Edward  Barber, 
who  glories  that  it  was  given  to  him  "to  devulge 
this  glorious  truth"  to  a  world  that  lay  in  ignorance, 
and  divers  other  Baptist  writers  have  just  as  little 
hesitation  in  conceding  the  point  ;  it  is  also  defi- 
nitely asserted  by  some  very  prominent  and  worthy 
men  of  other  religious  Denominations  who  were  con- 
versant with  the  circumstances  and  possibly  as  capable 
of  telling  the  truth  about  them  as  were  their  Baptist 
fellow  christians. 

What  more  needs  to  be  said?  The  testimony  of 
Baptists  and  Fedobaptists  alike  conspires  to  this  one 
end,  and  it  is  consistent  in  every  particular.  There 
is  a  great  cloud  of  witnesses,  and  yet  not  a  dis- 
cordant note  has  been  uttered.  Among  contempo- 
rary writers  not  one  has  been  found  who  could  re- 
port an  indubitable  instance  of  the  immersion  of  a 
believer  prior  to  the  year  1641  among  the  Anabap- 
tists of  England.  These  points  comprise  a  cumula- 
tive argument  which  impresses  my  own  mind  with 
much  force,  and  in  my  opinion  entitle  me  to  declare 
that  the  proofs  to  show  that  immersion  of  believers 
was  introduced  into  England  in  1641  are  irrefrag- 
able proofs. 

The  men  who  performed  this  great  service  deserve 
to  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance.  They  res- 
cued from  destruction,  at  least  in  the  English  speak- 

10 


U6  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

ing  world,  one  of  the  most  significant  and  solemn  or- 
dinances of  the  apostolic  age.  Thej  preserved  to  suc- 
ceeding ages  a  knowledge  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Their  courage  and  faithfulness  should  receive 
unstinted  acknowledgment.  We  cannot  be  grateful 
enough  for  the  patience  and  strength  with  which 
they  stood  in  their  lot  and  served  their  generation 
by  the  will  of  God.  Let  us  endeavor  to  imitate  their 
virtues  and  follow  them  as  they  followed  Christ. 
The  names  of  John  Spilsbury,  Edward  Barber  and 
Hichard  Blunt  should  be  inscribed  upon  our  tablets, 
and  everywhere  crowned  with  distinction.  They 
were  faithful  to  apostolic  truth.  They  resisted  the 
tide  of  innovation.  They  restored  an  ancient  land- 
mark. Surely  these  noble  men  have  been  neglected 
too  long.  They  merit  more  generous  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  the  great  and  widely  extended  Denom- 
ination of  Christian  people  who  for  so  long  a  period 
have  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  their  labors.  They 
dared  to  stand  against  a  nation  that  had  fallen  away 
from  the  truth  of  God  in  this  particular.  They  saw 
the  truth  and  had  the  courage  to  proclaim  it  in  the 
face  of  a  gainsaying  generation.  They  have  set  an 
example  of  faithfulness  to  God's  Word  that  has  since 
been  imitated  by  multitudes  of  men  and  women, 
some  of  whom  have  gladly  gone  to  prison  because 
they  held  Baptist  principles  to  be  Bible  teaching. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  147 


APPENDIX. 

BAPTISM   OF   ROGER    WILLIAMS. 

MOST  men,  even  the  greatest,  will  be  children 
of  the  age  and  country  in  which  they  are 
born  and  reared.  The  Reformers,  Luther,  Zwingli 
and  Calvin,  though  their  names  stand  among  the 
foremost  in  the  annals  of  Protestantism,  were  no  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule.  It  has  been  shown,  for  exam- 
ple, that  each  of  them  accepted  the  act  of  baptism 
that  prevailed  in  his  own  time  and  country.  Luther's 
preferences,  it  is  conceded,  turned  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, but  he  yielded  to  circumstances  that  he  was 
powerless  to  control. 

Roger  Williams  was  likewise  a  very  important 
personage;  but  he  was  not  great  enough  to  stand 
above  the  common  lot  of  humanity.  Like  Calvin, 
Zwingli  and  Luther,  he  was  a  child  of  the  age  and 
country  in  which  he  lived;  and  his  age  was  a  hun- 
dred years  later  than  the  age  of  the  Protestant  Re- 
formers. Sprinkling  and  pouring  for  baptism,  which 
already  in  the  generation  of  the  Reformers  were  too 
well  established  to  be  overthrown,  had  now  become 
still  more  firmly  fixed  in  the  customs  and  preferences 
of  Western  Christendom. 

Moreover   the   religious   people   with   whom  Mr. 


148  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Williams  in  the  earlier  portion  of  his  life  was  most 
intimately  connected  have  not  distinguished  them- 
selves by  any  special  inclinations  towards  the  rite  of 
immersion.  It  has  been  a  peculiarity  of  the  Re- 
formed or  Presbyterian  Church  ever  since  the  time 
of  Calvin  to  exhibit  comparatively  little  concern 
whether  immersion  should  be  retained  or  not.  The 
divines  at  Westminster  in  the  year  1644,  five  years 
after  Mr.  Williams  had  severed  his  connection  with 
the  men  of  that  school,  refused  to  permit  immersion 
to  stand  in  the  Directory  for  Public  Worship  by  the 
side  of  sprinkling  even  as  an  alternate  form  of  ad- 
ministering the  ordinance.  The  question  before  the 
body  was  "Whether  sprinkling  being  granted,  dip- 
ping should  be  tolerated  with  it,"  (Whole  works  of 
John  Lightfoot,  D.D.,  London,  1824,  vol.  xiii,  p. 
299),  and  this  question  was  decided  in  the  negative, 
an  act  which  amounted  to  the  abolition  of  immersion 
for  baptism  as  far  as  that  particular  communion  was 
concerned. 

There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  to  show  that  the 
opinions  of  Mr.  Williams  on  this  point  were  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  the  men  with  whom  he  had 
hitherto  been  in  sympathy.  Attention  has  been 
called  to  the  case  of  Rev.  Charles  Chauncey^  who 
arrived  at  Plymouth  in  May,  1638,  bringing  with 
him  sentiments  that  were  quite  extraordinary  among 
persons  of  the  Puritan  school.  Gov.  Winthrop 
says:     "Our  neighbors  of  Plimouth  had  procured 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  149 

from  hence  (England)  this  year,  one  Mr.  Chauncej, 
a  great  scholar  and  a  godly  man,  intending  to  call 
him  to  the  office  of  a  teacher;  hut  before  the  fit  time 
came  he  discovered  his  judgment  about  baptism, 
that  the  children  ought  to  be  dipped  and  not  sprin- 
kled, and  he  being  an  active  man  and  very  vehe- 
ment, there  arose  much  trouble  about  it.  The  mag- 
istrates and  other  elders  there,  and  the  most  of  the 
people,  withstood  the  receiving  of  that  practice. 
(Winthrop,  History  of  New  England  from  1630  to 
1649.     Boston,  1825,  vol.  1,  p.  330.) 

But  nobody  has  shown  that  Mr.  Williams  regard- 
ed the  view  of  Chauncey  with  any  sort  of  favor  at 
the  time  when  it  was  advanced.  For  aught  we 
know  to  the  contrary  he  may  have  felt  a  prejudice 
both  against  the  man  and  his  contention.  The 
record  also  declares  that  Chauncey's  judgment  was 
"that  the  children  ought  to  be  dipped  and  not  sprin- 
kled." The  immersion  of  adults  was  practically  a 
lost  art  in  England  and  America  at  this  time,  and  it 
is  conceivable  that  Mr.  Chauncey  did  not  contem- 
plate the  immersion  of  adults.  Possibly  it  would 
have  been  difficult  to  find  a  single  white  person  of 
adult  age  in  New  England  who  had  not  received 
baptism  in  infancy.  If  the  record  can  be  depended 
upon,  his  contention  related  to  the  dipping  of  in- 
fants exclusively,  and  not  to  the  dipping  of  adults. 
The  baptism  of  adults  for  which  Mr.  Williams  be- 
gan to  contend  in  the  spring  of  1639  was  so  widely 


150  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

different  from  the  baptism  of  infants,  for  which 
Chaiincey  was  striving,  that  the  act  of  immersion  in 
the  one  case  need  not  to  have  suggested  tlie  act  of 
immersion  in  the  other. 

Moreover  the  Anabaptists  with  whom  Mr.  Williams 
was  uniting  his  fortunes  in  the  year  1639  had  not 
yet  begun  the  practice  of  immersion  in  England. 
They  were  still  spoken  of  everywhere,  both  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  as  Anabaptists,  and  nowhere  at 
all  as  Baptists.  Is  there  any  a  j^Tiori  reason  for 
supposing  that  he  was  in  advance  of  them  in  this  re- 
gard? It  has  been  suggested  that  he  was  a  person 
of  unusual  independence  of  mind,  but  has  any  proof 
ever  been  given  to  show  that  his  independence  was 
employed  in  this  particular  direction? 

The  earliest  contemporary  record  of  the  baptism 
of  Williams  is  furnished  by  Winthrop  under  date  of 
March  16,  1639.  He  says  :  "At  Providence  things 
grew  still  worse  ;  for  a  sister  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson, 
the  wife  of  one  Scott,  being  infected  with  Anabap- 
tistry,  and  going  last  year  to  live  at  Providence, 
Mr.  Williams  was  taken  (or  rather  emboldened)  by 
her  to  make  open  profession  thereof,  and  accord- 
ingly was  rebaptized  by  one  Holyman,  a  poor  man 
late  of  Salem.  Then  Mr.  Williams  rebaptized  him 
and  some  ten  more."  (Winthrop,  vol.  1,  p.  293.) 
Another  contemporary  account  was  given  to  Dor- 
chester Church  by  Rev.  Hugh  Peters,  pastor  of 
Salem  Church,  under  date  of  July  1,  1639,  in  which 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  151 

he  acquaints  them  with  the  fact  that  their  "great 
censure  was  past  upon  Roger  Williams  and  his  wife, 
Thomas  Olney  and  his  wife,  John  Thrograorton  and 
his  wife,  Stukely  Westcot  and  his  wife,  Mary  Holli- 
man  and  the  widow  Keves,  and  that  all  but  two  of 
these  were  rebaptized."  (Backus,  History  1,  107.) 
The  above  statements  do  not  contain  a  distinct  asser- 
tion that  Mr.  Williams  was  sprinkled.  The  word 
"rebaptized"  may  not  positively  settle  the  question 
regarding  the  act  employed  ;  but  in  the  mouth  of 
Governor  Winthrop  and  of  Hugh  Peters  that  word 
could  hardly  point  to  anything  else  than  to  the  act 
of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  If  immersion  had  been 
employed  in  the  spring  of  1639  it  seems  likely  that 
definite  allusion  would  have  been  made  to  what  was 
at  the  time  an  entirely  unusual  method  of  adminis- 
tering ^the  ordinance  in  England  or  America.  The 
unusual  course  of  Mr.  Chauncey  in  advising  the  dip- 
ping of  infants  was  plainly  indicated  ;  it  is  difiicult 
to  understand  why  the  still  more  unusual  course  of 
Williams  in  practicing  the  dipping  of  adults  should 
not  have  been  likewise  plainly  described  by  the  same 
author.  The  best  explanation  of  this  silence  on  the 
part  of  Winthrop  seems  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Williams  did  not  employ  immersion. 

Six  years  after  the  baptism  of  Williams  had  taken 
place  at  Providence  he  published  a  tract  entitled 
Christenings  make  not  Christians,  or  A  Briefs 
Discourse  concerning  that  name  Heathen,  commonly 


152  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

given  to  the  Indians.  As  also  concerning  that  great 
point  of  their  Conversion.  Published  according  to 
order.  London,  Printed  by  lane  Cox,  for  I.  H., 
1645.  This  work  was  recovered  by  Dr.  Dexter  at 
the  British  Museum  in  March,  1881,  and  has  been 
reprinted  as  Number  XIV.  of  the  Rhode  Island  His- 
torical Pamphlets. 

When  he  comes  to  discuss  the  conversion  of  the 
Indians  Mr.  Williams  first  describes  the  wrong 
way  to  go  about  it  and  afterwards  the  right  way. 
The  way  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  duly  set  forth  as 
the  wrong  way.  Another  wrong  way  is  indicated  as 
follows:  "Thirdly,  for  our  New  England  parts, 
I  can  speake  uprightly  and  confidently,  I  know 
it  to  have  been  easie  for  my  selfe,  long  ere 
this,  to  have  brought  many  thousands  of  these  Na- 
tives, yea  the  whole  country  to  a  far  greater  Anti- 
christian  conversion  than  ever  was  heard  of  in 
America.  I  have  reported  something  in  the  Chap- 
ter of  their  Religion,  how  readily  I  could  have 
brought  the  whole  Country  to  have  observed  one  day 
in  seven  ;  I  adde  to  have  received  a  Baptisme  (or 
washing)  though  it  were  in  Rivers  (as  the  first  Chris- 
tians and  the  Lord  Jesus  himselfe  did)  to  have  come 
to  a  stated  Church,  meeting^  maintained  priests  and 
formes  of  prayer  and  a  whole  forme  of  Antichris- 
tian  worship  in  life  and  death,  (p.  11.)" 

The  expression  "Baptisme  (or  washing)  though  it 
were  in  Rivers''''  indicates  that  this  form  of  the  ordi- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  153 

nance  was  unusual  in  1645.  In  the  year  1643  Mr. 
Williams  made  a  visit  to  England  to  procure  a 
charter  for  Rhode  Island.  Here  he  had  found  oc- 
casion to  become  acquainted  with  immersion  that  had 
been  brought  in  in  1641.  It  is  evident  that  he  re- 
gards it  as  something  unusual — "though  it  were  in 
Rivers" — yet  he  concedes  that  it  was  what  "the 
:first  Christians  and  the  Lord  Jesus  himself  did." 
But  the  question  before  us  is  whether  it  was  what 
Mr.  Williams  himself  did  ?  Had  he  submitted  to 
that  act  in  1639  when  he  was  rebaptized  at  Provi- 
dence ?  Even  after  he  had  been  enlightened  and 
persuaded  that  the  first  Christians  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself  were  immersed  would  he  then  have 
been  willing  to  be  immersed  himself  ?  Multitudes 
have  no  scruples  whatever  in  conceding  that  immer- 
sion was  the  primitive  act  of  baptism  who  will  not 
recognize  the  slightest  obligation  to  submit  to  the 
rite  themselves.  Tliat  is  the  position  of  almost  the 
entire  body  of  Pedobaptist  scholars  in  European 
countries.  These  persuade  themselves  that  the 
mode,  as  they  phrase  it,  is  a  concern  of  no  conse- 
quence, and  hence  they  claim  liberty  to  alter  it  if 
they  choose. 

After  having  set  forth  the  wrong  method  to  con- 
vert the  Indians  Mr.  Williams  next  undertakes  to 
describe  the  right  method.  He  says:  "Secondly, 
affirmatively  :  I  answer  in  generall,  A  true  Conver- 
sion whether  of  Americans  or  Europeans  must  be 


154  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

such  as  those  Conversions  were  of  the  first  pattern 
either  of  the  Jewes  or  the  Heathens  ;  That  rule  is 
the  golden  Mace  toaiid  in  the  hand  of  the  Angell  or 
Messenger,  rev.  11.1,  beside  which  all  others  are 
leaden  and  crooked. 

In  particular:  First,  it  must  be  by  the  free  pro- 
claiming or  preaching  of  Repentance  and  forgive- 
nesse  of  sins,  Luke  24,  by  such  as  can  prove  their 
lawfull  sending  and  commission  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
to  make  Disciples  out  of  all  nations:  and  so  to  bap- 
tize or  wash  them,  £!\-  -u  ovoaa,  into  the  name  or  pro- 
fession of  the  holy  Trinity,  Mat.  28.19;  Rom.  10.14, 
15." 

In  the  first  citation  above  Mr.  Williams  had  con- 
ceded that  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  first 
Christians  and  our  Lord,  and  yet  in  this  place,  where 
he  is  laying  down  the  proper  method  of  converting 
the  Indians  he  ignores  immersion  entirely.  It  is 
sufficient  to  "wash  them  into  the  name  or  profession 
of  the  holy  Trinity"  and  is  not  necessary  to  "wash 
them  in  rivers"  as  was  indicated  above.  This  sec- 
ond citation  appears  to  prove  that  Mr.  Williams  did 
not  regard  immersion  as  essential  to  Christian  bap- 
tism. In  brief  words,  he  had  heard  of  immersion 
during  his  visit  to  England,  and  possibly  had  wit- 
nessed the  ordinance  performed,  but  he  here  decides 
against  it.  He  ignored  it  as  decidedly  as  if  no  such 
practice  had  been  there  introduced  anew  in  the  year 
1641.  In  view  of  this  circumstance  it  is  not  easy  to- 
believe  that  he  had  submitted  to  it  in  1639. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  155- 

If  it  sliould  be  objected  that  the  phrase  "wash 
them  into  the  name  or  profession  of  the  holy  Trin- 
ity" points  to  immersion,  we  may  reply  that  this 
would  be  a  just  contention  if  Mr.  Williams  had  added, 
as  in  the  first  instance,  some  allusion  to  rivers  in 
which  the  ordinance  should  take  place.  He  has  here 
omitted  that  specification,  apparently  of  set  pur- 
pose. 

The  word  "wash"  that  is  here  made  use  of  is  the 
same  word  as  is  employed  for  baptism  by  the  West- 
minster divines  in  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms 
published  in  1648,  where  it  indisputably  points  to 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  The  Larger  Catechism  reads 
as  follows:  "What  is  Baptism?  Baptism  is  a  sacra- 
ment of  the  New  Testament  wherein  Christ  hath  or- 
dained the  washing  with  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 
The  Shorter  Catechism  says:  "Baptism  is  a  sacra- 
ment wherein  the  washing  with  water  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
doth  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ," 
etc.  Both  of  these  passages  are  parallel  to  the  one 
before  us,  and  it  provides  for  sprinkling  or  pouring 
just  as  certainly  as  they  do.  It  would  hardly  be  nat- 
ural to  suppose  that  a  man  who  wrote  thus  in  1645 
had  been  immersed  in  1639. 

If  any  should  urge  that  Mr.  Williams  employs  the 
expression  "wash  them,  siV  rd  o'^o/ia,  into  the  name  or 
profession  of  the  holy  Trinity, "  laying  emphasis  upon 


156  A    QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

the  preposition  "into,"  as  indicating  that  the  wash- 
ing was  to  be  done  by  immersion,  that  would  be  an 
unwarranted  inference.  Mr.  Richard  Cljfton,  the 
well-known  Brownist,  who  always  employed  sprin- 
kling for  baptism,  makes  use  of  the  same  expression 
in  his  Plea  for  Infants  and  Elder  People  concerning 
their  Baptisme  (p.  173),  as  follows:  "Without  this 
washing  with  water  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
etc.,  it  can  not  be  baptisme."  (Dexter,  True  Story, 
p.  25.)  Indeed  this  author  also  says.  Plea  for  In- 
fants, p.  159:  "Concerning  the  forme  of  baptism,  I 
confess  it  is  the  sprinkling  of  a  fit  subject  with  water 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.  (Dexter,  True 
Story,  p.  25.)  The  circumstance  that  the  preposi- 
tion "into"  is  employed  in  the  same  way  after  the 
word  "sprinkling"  as  after  the  word  "washing" 
renders  it  clear  that  in  neither  case  is  immersion  the 
necessary  or  natural  meaning.  Consequently  when 
Mr.  Williams  declares  that  to  baptize  is  the  same  as 
to  "wash  them  into  the  name  or  profession  of  the 
holy  Trinity,"  it  appears  almost  certain  that  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  was  the  act  of  baptism  which  he 
recommends.  If  he  had  favored  immersion,  he 
would  most  likely  have  specified  that  the  washing 
should  be  done  in  rivers,  as  he  concedes  that  "the 
first  Christians  and  the  Lord  himself  did." 

The  letter  to  Gov.  Winthrop  under  date  of  No- 
vember 10,  1649,  also  suggests  that  the  baptism  of 
Williams  in  1639  was  not  administered  by  immer- 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  157 

sion.  He  says:  ^".At  Seekonk  a  great  many  have 
lately  concurred  with  Mr.  John  Clarke  and  our 
Providence  men  about  the  point  of  a  new  Baptism 
and  the  manner  by  dipping,  and  Mr.  John  Clarke 
hath  been  there  lately  (and  Mr.Lucar)  and  hath  dipped 
them.  I  believe  their  practice  comes  nearer  the  prac- 
tice of  our  great  Founder,  Christ  Jesus,  than  other 
practices  of  religion  do,  and  yet  I  have  not  satisfac- 
tion neither  in  the  authority  by  which  it  is  done,  nor 
in  the  manner."  (Publication  of  the  Narragansett 
Club,  vol.  vi.,  p.  188,  Providence,  1874.) 

Providence  Church  under  the  direction  of  Will- 
iams had  submitted  to  a  baptism  in  1639.  Newport 
appears  to  have  taken  like  action  under  Mr.  Clarke 
in  1641,  at  which  time  the  Congregational  Church 
over  which  he  had  for  several  years  presided,  went  to 
pieces,  and  Winthrop  reports  that  divers  on  the  Island 
"turned  professed  Anabaptists."  Before  1649  both 
Mr.  John  Clarke  and  the  Providence  men  had  "con- 
curred about  the  point  of  a  new  baptism."  The  man- 
ner of  that  new  baptism  he  states  was  by  the  uncom- 
mon method  of  dipping^  which  suggests  pretty 
clearly  that  the  manner  of  the  other  baptism  had  not 
been  by  dipping.  Mr.  Williams  had  no  part  in  the 
new  baptism  by  dipping,  for  he  expressly  describes 
it  as  "their  practice"  and  not  as  his  own  practice, 
which  must  have  been  something  very  different. 

Mr.  Lucar,  who  had  been  immersed  in  1641  when 
Blunt  brought  back  the  rite  from  Holland  (Gould, 


158  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Introduction,  p.  cxxiv.),  and  who  may  have  come  to 
Rhode  Island  when  Williams  returned  with  the  char- 
ter in  1644,  supplies  the  best  solution  of  all  ques- 
tions here  involved.  Mr.  Lucar  is  supposed  in  turn 
to  have  brought  immersion  to  America.  In  the 
year  1648,  according  to  Hubbard's  manuscript  he 
was  one  of  fifteen  members  of  Newport  Church. 
Prof  Newman  (History,  p.  50)  has  also  called  atten- 
tion to  Mr.  Lucar  as  a  link  between  the  earliest  Par- 
ticular Baptist  Church  in  England  and  the  Church 
at  Newport.  If  Mr.  Williams  had  introduced  im- 
mersion into  New  England  in  1639,  his  language 
as  cited  above  is  inexplicable.  He  tacitly  yields 
that  honor  to  others  by  declaring  that  it  was 
a  "new  Baptism"  and  that  it  was  ^Hheir practice''' 
and  not  his  own.  The  honor  of  being  the  first  gen- 
uine Baptist  on  the  continent  of  America  appears  to 
belong  to  Mr.  Lucar.  The  men  of  Providence  had 
thought  of  sending  Thomas  Olney,  the  successor  of 
Williams  in  the  pastoral  ofiice,  as  far  as  Hungary  to 
obtain  the  ordinance  from  immersing  Anabaptists  in 
that  country  (Backus,  1,112),  but  they  finally  con- 
curred with  Mr.  John  Clarke  and  they  were  all  im- 
mersed, as  is  supposed,  by  Lucar.  This  may  have 
been  accomplished  in  1644.  The  manuscript  of 
Samuel  Hubbard,  who  joined  Newport  Church  in 
1648,  says  that  the  church  was  formed  about  1644 
.(Backus  1,  pp.  149-50,  note). 

Let  it   be  observed    that  even  though  he  allows 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  159 

that  "their  practice  came  nearer  the  practice  of  our 
great  Founder  Christ  Jesus  than  other  practices  in 
religion  do,  yet  lie  had  no  "satisfaction  neither  in  the 
authority  by  which  it  is  done,  nor  in  the  manner." 
Mr.  Williams  remained  only  four  months  with  Provi- 
dence Church  and  then  retired  because  he  had 
become  a  Seeker,  or  one  who  looked  and  sought  for 
a  prophet  divinely  commissioned  to  introduce  the 
ordinances  anew  after  the  long  defection  of  Anti- 
christ. For  that  reason  he  could  not  be  satisfied 
with  the  authority  by  which  immersion  had  been 
adopted  at  Providence  and  Newport.  It  is  possible 
on  the  other  hand  that  he  could  not  find  satisfaction 
in  the  manner,  for  the  reason  that  while  he  admitted 
that  immersion  was  scriptural  and  apostolical  he 
could  not  convince  himself  that  it  was  essential  to 
baptism.  At  any  rate  that  was  the  position  he  occu- 
pied in  1645  when  writing  his  tract  entitled  Christen- 
ings make  not  Christians. 

To  recapitulate  :  here  are  four  important  contem- 
porary utterances.  One  of  these  by  Winthrop  and 
another  by  Hugh  Peters  occurred  in  the  same  year  in 
which  the  occurrence  took  place.  Both  of  these  ap- 
pear to  testify  against  immersion,  since  they  used 
no  other  term  but  "rebaptized."  A  short  while  after- 
wards when  Gov.  Winthrop  was  describing  the  prac- 
tice of  Rev.  Charles  Chauncey  he  employs  the  phrase 
"dipped  and  not  sprinkled,"  and  there  can  be  little 
question  that  he  would  have  employed  it  here  if  Mr. 


160  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

Williams  had  practiced  immersion.  The  two  other 
contemporary  utterances  are  by  Mr.  Williams  him- 
self. That  of  the  year  1645,  found  in  Christen- 
ings make  not  Christians,  appears  to  show  that 
while  he  conceded  immersion  was  the  practice 
of  our  Lord  and  the  first  Christians  he  did  not  con- 
sider it  essential  to  baptism.  The  form  of  his 
expression  also  suggests  that  it  was  a  new  and  unusual 
custom.  It  does  not  seem  at  all  likely  that  he  had  sub- 
mitted to  it  in  person  in  1639.  That  conclusion  is  still 
more  apparent  from  the  statement  found  in  the  letter  to 
Gov.  Wiuthrop  in  16'19,  since  he  there  speaks  of  a '  'new 
baptism  and  the  manner  by  dipping,"  and  seems  to 
represent  that  it  was  the  practice  in  which  Mr.  John 
Clarke  and  the  Providence  men  had  concurred,  but 
in  which  he  in  person  had  taken  no  part.  All  of 
these  contemporary  utterances  are  further  supported 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  religious  affiliation  of 
Mr.  Williams  prior  to  1639  was  with  a  people  whose 
sympathy  for  immersion  was  notably  defective,  and 
who  at  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  August,  1644, 
did  all  that  lay  in  their  power  to  abolish  the  rite  alto- 
gether. He  had  contentions  with  his  brethren  in 
Massachusetts  on  divers  other  points,  but  there  is  no 
account  of  his  ever  contending  with  their  position  on 
this  point.  And  finally,  the  Anabaptists  with  whom 
he  united  his  fortunes  for  a  period  of  four  months 
had  not  then  adopted  immersion  in  England,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Williams 
travelled  in»advance  of  them  in  this  regard. 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  161 

Over  against  all  this  has  been  set  the  testimony  of 
William  Coddington.  A  man  of  many  changes, 
Mr.  Coddington  at  last  turned  Quaker,  and  had  be- 
come offended  with  Mr.  Williams  for  his  opposition 
to  the  advocates  of  that  faith.  In  1677,  thirty-eight 
years  after  the  event  in  question,  he  wrote  a  choleric 
epistle  to  George  Fox  in  which  he  asserts  that  Wil- 
liams was  "one  time  for  water  baptism,  men  and 
women  must  be  plunged  into  the  water;  and  then 
throw  it  all  down  again."    (Backus,  vol.  1,  p.  445.) 

Coddington  was  not  an  eyewitness  any  more  than 
were  Winthrop  and  Peters.  Newport  is  almost  as 
far  from  Providence  as  Boston  or  Salem.  The  testi- 
mony of  Coddington  is  not,  properly  speaking,  con- 
temporary testimony  as  was  that  of  Winthrop  and 
Peters.  One's  memory  is  capable  of  becoming  con- 
fused in  thirty-eight  years,  and  Mr,  Coddington's 
memory  may  have  become  confused.  He  may  have 
supposed  that  the  immersion  of  believers  was  prac- 
ticed in  Rhode  Island  in  1639,  because  it  had  been 
practiced  since  1644;  but  that  was  a  violent  suppo- 
sition. Robert  Burns  somewhere  says  that  "six  lines 
set  down  upon  the  spot  are  worth  a  cart  load  of 
reminiscences."  The  few  lines  set  down  upon  the 
spot  by  Winthrop  and  Peters  are  worth  a  cartload  of 
Coddington's  confused  reminiscences. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that  Coddington  does 

not  distinctly  say  that  Williams  was  himself  immersed, 

but  that  at  one  time  he  favored  it.      Nor  does  Cod- 
u 


J62  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

dington  say  at  wliat  period  of  Williams'  life  he  held 
to  immersion.  We  have  seen  that  in  1645  (Christ- 
enings make  not  Christians),  which  was  after  his  re- 
turn from  England,  he  did  have  knowledge  of  immer- 
sion. In  1649  he  was  not  satisfied  about  the  "man- 
ner by  dipping.''  Hence  it  can  not  be  proven  from 
Coddington's  statement  that  the  period  referred  to 
by  him  was  1639,  which  is  the  only  date  in  Mr. 
Williams'  life  here  under  discussion. 

The  most  reliable  tradition  on  this  subject  has  fol- 
lowed the  lead  of  Winthrop  and  Peters-,  rather  than 
that  of  Coddington.  William  Hubbard  in  his  Gen- 
eral History  of  New  England  from  the  Discovery  to 
1680,  employs  the  word  "rebaptized"  and  does  not 
speak  of  immersion.  (Backus,  vol.  1,  p.  106.) 
Cotton  Mather  in  the  Magnalia,  1702,  mentions  the 
"first  baptism"  and  the  "last  baptism,"  but  he 
knows  nothing  of  dipping  in  either  case  (Magnalia, 
vol.  2,  p.  432).  Rev.  John  Callender  in  his  His- 
torical Discourse,  Boston,  1739,  could  well  afford  to 
dodge  the  question,  since  at  the  time  when  his  book 
was  published  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind 
whether  Mr.  Williams  had  ever  been  connected  with 
the  Baptists  or  not.  Isaac  Backus  in  his  History  of 
New  England,  etc.,  Boston,  1777,  pp.  106-7,  fol- 
lows Winthrop,  Peters  and  Hubbard,  laying  no  em- 
phasis upon  immersion.  The  same  position  is  held 
in  his  later  and  smaller  work  published  in  1804. 
(Publication    Society's    ed.,    Phil.,    1844,    p.    50.) 


A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY.  163 

Kev.  John  Stanford  in  the  records  of  the  First  Bap- 
tist Church  of  Providence,  which  were  prepared  in 
1775,  does  not  mention  immersion.  At  any  rate, 
Benedict,  who  claims  to  have  followed  these  records 
closely  (History,  New  York,  1856,  p.  457),  employs 
the  word  baptize,  and  says  nothing  about  immersion. 
(History,  Boston,  1813,  vol.  1,  p.  475;  cf.  History, 
New  York,  1856,  p.  450.)  Prof.  J.  D.  Knowles 
(Memoir  of  Koger  Williams,  Boston,  1834,  p.  165) 
follows  the  tradition  in  using  the  word  baptize,  but 
expressions  found  in  other  portions  of  his  volume 
show  that  he  understood  the  word  to  mean  immerse. 
Eev.  William  Hague  in  his  Historical  Discourse, 
Boston,  1839,  p.  30,  occupies  the  position  of  the 
Providence  Church  Kecords,  making  no  allusion  to 
immersion,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Kev.  J.  M. 
Cramp,  Baptist  History,  Phil.,  1868,  p.  461.  Kev. 
H.  M.  Dexter,  As  to  Koger  Williams,  Boston,  1876, 
p.  107;  Prof.  H.  C.  Yedder,  Short  History  of  the 
Baptists,  Phil.,  1892,  p.  154;  Mr.  Oscar  S.  Straus, 
Koger  Williams,  the  Pioneer  of  Keligious  Liberty, 
New  York,  1894,  p.  107,  and  Kev.  H.  S.  Burrage, 
History  of  the  Baptists  in  New  England,  Phil.,  1895, 
p.  23,  are  all  in  accord  with  this  tradition,  since  each 
uses  the  word  baptize,  and  avoids  the  words  dip  or 
immerse. 

On  the  other  hand  Dr.  Armitage,  (History  of  the 
Baptists,  New  York,  1887,  pp.  659-60,  boldly  ar- 
gues for  immersion,    and  Prof.  A.   H.  Newman  of 


164  A  QUESTION  IN  BAPTIST  HISTORY. 

McMaster  University  (History,  New  York,  1894,  p. 
80,  note)  declares  that  "contemporary  testimony  is 
uunanimos  in  favor  of  the  view  that  immersion  was 
practiced  by  Williams."  The  work  of  Dr.  Newman 
is  the  most  scientific  and  satisfactory  that  has  yet 
,»been  devoted  to  the  history  of  American  Baptists, 
but  the  language  here  cited  is  stronger  than  the 
facts  of  the  case  seem  to  justify.  The  only  really 
contemporary  testimony  appears  to  favor  the  other 
side. 

In  the  present  state  of  information  it  would  be 
unwise  to  pronounce  with  certainty  any  conclusion 
regarding  this  question.  However,  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  uncertainty  which  is  freely  acknowledged, 
the  weight  of  evidence  appears  to  incline  very 
clearly  towards  the  view  that  Roger  Williams  was 
sprinkled  and  not  immersed  at  Providence  in  1639. 


Date  Due 

Fp«f-rT^ 

— 

*-mn0S^ 

.^-  - 

1 

4tr*'^^ 

.--w.«-f*<^r-"*'* 

-o  r  1  1 1  1  II 1  ntiii 

St 

3^^*^ 

pp 

r^T^^^^^^^^^^^^K 

*p^- 

JJiiilLiJ-Wi  !"'■  "•* 

N 

w^^ 

""^ 

d 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

